IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/infome/v5y2011i1p167-180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model

Author

Listed:
  • Marsh, Herbert W.
  • Jayasinghe, Upali W.
  • Bond, Nigel W.

Abstract

Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases—particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing a null hypothesis model in relation to the effect of researcher gender on peer reviews of grant proposals, based on 10,023 reviews by 6233 external assessors of 2331 proposals from social science, humanities, and science disciplines. Utilizing multilevel cross-classified models, we show that support for the null hypothesis model positing researcher gender has no significant effect on proposal outcomes. Furthermore, these non-effects of gender generalize over assessor gender (contrary to a matching hypothesis), discipline, assessors chosen by the researchers themselves compared to those chosen by the funding agency, and country of the assessor. Given the large, diverse sample, the powerful statistical analyses, and support for generalizability, these results – coupled with findings from previous research – offer strong support for the null hypothesis model of no gender differences in peer reviews of grant proposals.

Suggested Citation

  • Marsh, Herbert W. & Jayasinghe, Upali W. & Bond, Nigel W., 2011. "Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 167-180.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:5:y:2011:i:1:p:167-180
    DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S175115771000091X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Upali W. Jayasinghe & Herbert W. Marsh & Nigel Bond, 2006. "A new reader trial approach to peer review in funding research grants: An Australian experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 69(3), pages 591-606, December.
    2. Christine Wennerås & Agnes Wold, 1997. "Nepotism and sexism in peer-review," Nature, Nature, vol. 387(6631), pages 341-343, May.
    3. Upali W. Jayasinghe & Herbert W. Marsh & Nigel Bond, 2003. "A multilevel cross‐classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: the effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 166(3), pages 279-300, October.
    4. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2007. "Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 226-238.
    5. Herbert Marsh & Lutz Bornmann, 2009. "Do women have less success in peer review?," Nature, Nature, vol. 459(7246), pages 602-602, May.
    6. Lutz Bornmann & Hans-Dieter Daniel, 2005. "Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' decisions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 63(2), pages 297-320, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lawson, Cornelia & Geuna, Aldo & Finardi, Ugo, 2021. "The funding-productivity-gender nexus in science, a multistage analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(3).
    2. Schneider, Jesper W., 2013. "Caveats for using statistical significance tests in research assessments," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 50-62.
    3. Mancuso, Raffaele & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina & Franzoni, Chiara, 2023. "Topic choice, gendered language, and the under-funding of female scholars in mission-oriented research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    4. Hildrun Kretschmer & Theo Kretschmer, 2013. "Gender bias and explanation models for the phenomenon of women’s discriminations in research careers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(1), pages 25-36, October.
    5. Corsi, Marcella & D’Ippoliti, Carlo & Zacchia, Giulia, 2019. "Diversity of backgrounds and ideas: The case of research evaluation in economics," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    6. Martha M Bakker & Maarten H Jacobs, 2016. "Tenure Track Policy Increases Representation of Women in Senior Academic Positions, but Is Insufficient to Achieve Gender Balance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.
    7. Georgina Santos & Stéphanie Dang Van Phu, 2019. "Gender and Academic Rank in the UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-46, June.
    8. Paul Siu Fai Yip & Yunyu Xiao & Clifford Long Hin Wong & Terry Kit Fong Au, 2020. "Is there gender bias in research grant success in social sciences?: Hong Kong as a case study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    9. Squazzoni, Flaminio & Gandelli, Claudio, 2012. "Saint Matthew strikes again: An agent-based model of peer review and the scientific community structure," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(2), pages 265-275.
    10. González-Álvarez, Julio & Cervera-Crespo, Teresa, 2017. "Research production in high-impact journals of contemporary neuroscience: A gender analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 232-243.
    11. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Albert Banal-Estañol & Qianshuo Liu & Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo, 2021. "Similar-to-me Effects in the Grant Application Process: Applicants, Panelists, and the Likelihood of Obtaining Funds," Working Papers 1289, Barcelona School of Economics.
    2. Stephen A Gallo & Joanne H Sullivan & Scott R Glisson, 2016. "The Influence of Peer Reviewer Expertise on the Evaluation of Research Funding Applications," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, October.
    3. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182.
    4. Jens Jirschitzka & Aileen Oeberst & Richard Göllner & Ulrike Cress, 2017. "Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1059-1092, November.
    5. Carole J. Lee & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Guo Zhang & Blaise Cronin, 2013. "Bias in peer review," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 64(1), pages 2-17, January.
    6. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 280-287.
    7. Elsa Addessi & Marta Borgi & Elisabetta Palagi, 2012. "Is Primatology an Equal-Opportunity Discipline?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(1), pages 1-6, January.
    8. Benda, Wim G.G. & Engels, Tim C.E., 2011. "The predictive validity of peer review: A selective review of the judgmental forecasting qualities of peers, and implications for innovation in science," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 166-182, January.
    9. Vieira, Elizabeth S. & Cabral, José A.S. & Gomes, José A.N.F., 2014. "How good is a model based on bibliometric indicators in predicting the final decisions made by peers?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(2), pages 390-405.
    10. Patrícia Martinková & Dan Goldhaber & Elena Erosheva, 2018. "Disparities in ratings of internal and external applicants: A case for model-based inter-rater reliability," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, October.
    11. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Macho-Stadler, Inés & Pérez-Castrillo, David, 2019. "Evaluation in research funding agencies: Are structurally diverse teams biased against?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1823-1840.
    12. Amy Hinsley & William J Sutherland & Alison Johnston, 2017. "Men ask more questions than women at a scientific conference," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    13. Michał Krawczyk & Magdalena Smyk, 2015. "Gender, beauty and support networks in academia: evidence from a field experiment," Working Papers 2015-43, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    14. Mario Paolucci & Francisco Grimaldo, 2014. "Mechanism change in a simulation of peer review: from junk support to elitism," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(3), pages 663-688, June.
    15. Ulf Sandström & Martin Hällsten, 2008. "Persistent nepotism in peer-review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 74(2), pages 175-189, February.
    16. Kok, Holmer & Faems, Dries & de Faria, Pedro, 2022. "Pork Barrel or Barrel of Gold? Examining the performance implications of earmarking in public R&D grants," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(7).
    17. Wiltrud Kuhlisch & Magnus Roos & Jörg Rothe & Joachim Rudolph & Björn Scheuermann & Dietrich Stoyan, 2016. "A statistical approach to calibrating the scores of biased reviewers of scientific papers," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 79(1), pages 37-57, January.
    18. Bornmann, Lutz & Mutz, Rüdiger & Daniel, Hans-Dieter, 2008. "Latent Markov modeling applied to grant peer review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(3), pages 217-228.
    19. Bradford Demarest & Guo Freeman & Cassidy R. Sugimoto, 2014. "The reviewer in the mirror: examining gendered and ethnicized notions of reciprocity in peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 717-735, October.
    20. Martha M Bakker & Maarten H Jacobs, 2016. "Tenure Track Policy Increases Representation of Women in Senior Academic Positions, but Is Insufficient to Achieve Gender Balance," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-15, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:infome:v:5:y:2011:i:1:p:167-180. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/joi .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.