IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rseval/v34y2025iprvaf048..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gender gaps in the peer review process. Different sources in the evaluation process for the allocation of grants in Argentina

Author

Listed:
  • Florencia Fiorentin
  • Diana Suarez

Abstract

This paper examines gender gaps in three dimensions of peer review for research grant allocation: relevance, feasibility, and academic background of researchers. The empirical analysis focuses on the Argentinean PICT grant program during 2019–21. Results reveal that female researchers receive lower scores than their male counterparts across all evaluated dimensions. The gender scoring gap is most pronounced among young researchers, particularly in the evaluation of academic background. The evidence suggests that S&T programs aimed at strengthening the scientific system may disproportionately benefit male researchers, particularly in the early stages of their careers. Consequently, horizontal S&T policies that lack a gender perspective risk reinforcing existing barriers to women’s advancement.

Suggested Citation

  • Florencia Fiorentin & Diana Suarez, 2025. "Gender gaps in the peer review process. Different sources in the evaluation process for the allocation of grants in Argentina," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 34, pages 1-048..
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf048.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/reseval/rvaf048
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rseval:v:34:y:2025:i::p:rvaf048.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/rev .

    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.