Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review

Abstract

ObjectiveTo review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.MethodsStudies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), PsycINFO, Joanna Briggs, the Cochrane Library, Evidence Based Medicine (EBM) Reviews, and the Campbell Library were searched from 2005 to April 2016. A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles. Two individuals screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and abstracted data with discrepancies resolved by a third person consistently.ResultsAfter screening 5524 citations and 170 full-text articles, one article evaluating gender-blinding of grant applications using an uncontrolled before-after study design was included. In this study, 891 applications for long-term fellowships in 2006 were included and 47% of the applicants were women. These were scored by 13 peer reviewers (38% were women). The intervention included eliminating references to gender from the applications, letters of recommendations, and interview reports that were sent to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly.ConclusionsThere is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias should be adapted and tested in the context of grant peer review to determine if they will have an impact.

Gender Disparities in Academic Emergency Medicine: Strategies for the Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion of Women

“…A gender‐blind review process can help remove unconscious and conscious bias from resident selection . If that is not feasible, a holistic review of all applications and acknowledgment of gender bias in the review, interview, and ranking processes is important.…”

Female grant applicants are equally successful when peer reviewers assess the science, but not when they assess the scientist

“…Following the grant cycles analyzed in our study, and as part of a broader Equity Framework, 91 the CIHR implemented new policies to eliminate the observed gender gap in Foundation grants. The policies included instructions that reviewers should complete an evidence-based 92 reviewer training module about multiple forms of unconscious bias. 93 Training has been shown to help mitigate the effects of bias in some studies 15,94 though not in others.…”

Paediatric gastrostomy stoma complications and treatments: A rapid scoping review

“…Scoping reviews are ideally suited to fields where the literature is emerging and permit capture of a range of study types (Grant & Booth, 2009). To set parameters around the breadth of the review, aspects of rapid reviews were incorporated (e.g., Cardoso et al, 2017;Tricco et al, 2017). This strategy ensured a fast and feasible process to meet pressing needs related to standard of care development activities.…”