Strategies to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants: A rapid scoping review

PLoS ONE

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Tricco, Andrea C ^a,b   Thomas, Sonia M ^a   Antony, Jesmin ^a   Rios, Patricia ^a   Robson, Reid ^a   Pattani, Reena ^a   Ghassemi, Marco ^a   Sullivan, Shannon ^a   Selvaratnam, Inthuja ^a   Tannenbaum, Cara ^c   Straus, Sharon E ^a,b  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c CANADIAN INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CASE REPORT; COCHRANE LIBRARY; EDUCATION; EMBASE; FEMALE; FUNDING; GENDER BIAS; HUMAN; INFORMATION CENTER; INTERVIEW; MALE; MEDICINE; MEDLINE; PARTICIPANT OBSERVATION; PEER REVIEW; PSYCINFO; SCREENING; STUDY DESIGN; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; META ANALYSIS; PUBLICATION; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH; SEXISM; STANDARDS; WORKFLOW;

FEMALE; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; HUMANS; MALE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATIONS; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; RESEARCH; SEXISM; WORKFLOW;

EID: 85009844404     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169718     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ovseiko PV, Greenhalgh T, Adam P, Grant J, Hinrichs-Krapels S, Graham KE, et al. A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment. Health research policy and systems / BioMed Central. 2016; 14(1):50. Epub 2016/07/20.
2. Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Women in University Research. Strengthening Canada's research capacity: the gender dimension. 2012.
3. Beery AK, Zucker I. Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews. 2011; 35(3):565-72. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002 PMID: 20620164
4. Head MG, Fitchett JR, Cooke MK, Wurie FB, Atun R. Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010. BMJ open. 2013; 3(12):e003362. Epub 2013/12/12. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003362 PMID: 24327360
5. Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner RM, Schaffer WT, Pinn VW. Sex Differences in Application, Success, and Funding Rates for NIH Extramural Programs. Academic Medicine. 2011; 86(6):759-67. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31821836ff PMID: 21512358
6. Tamblyn R, McMahon M, Girard N, Drake E, Nadigel J, Gaudreau K. Health services and policy research in the first decade at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ open. 2016; 4(2): E213-21. Epub 2016/07/12. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20150045 PMID: 27398366
7. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2016 Foundation Grant results [Web Page]. Canada: Canada. ca; 2016. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/49854.html.
8. Banaji MR, Roediger H III, Nairne J, Neath I, Surprenant A. Implicit attitudes can be measured. The nature of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G Crowder. 2001.
9. Mutz R, Bornmann L, Daniel HD. Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?: An Empirical Investigation Using the Example of the Austrian Science Fund. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie. 2012; 220(2):121-9. Epub 2012/01/01. doi: 10.1027/2151-2604/a000103 PMID: 23480982
10. Ley TJ, Hamilton BH. Sociology. The gender gap in NIH grant applications. Science (New York, NY). 2008; 322(5907):1472-4. Epub 2008/12/06.
11. National Institutes Of Health. Funding NIH Data Book, Data by Gender 2016. [November 2016]. https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/.
12. National Institutes Of Health. Data By Gender RO1-Equivalent Grants: Success Rates, By Gender and Type of Application 2015. [November 2016]. https://report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/charts/Default.aspx?chartId=178&catId=15.
13. Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner RM, Schaffer WT, Pinn VW. Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2011; 86(6):759-67. Epub 2011/04/23.
14. Grant J, Burden S, Breen G. No evidence of sexism in peer review. Nature. 1997; 390(6659):438. Epub 1997/12/11. doi: 10.1038/37213 PMID: 9393992
15. Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. The American psychologist. 2008; 63(3):160-8. Epub 2008/04/02. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160 PMID: 18377106
16. Gannon F, Quirk S, Guest S. Searching for discrimination. Are women treated fairly in the EMBO postdoctoral fellowship scheme? EMBO reports. 2001; 2(8):655-7. Epub 2001/08/09. doi: 10.1093/emboreports/kve170 PMID: 11493590
17. European Research Council. Gender Statistics 2014. [November 2016]. https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/Gender-statistics-April-2014.pdf.
18. van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015; 112 (40):12349-53. Epub 2015/09/24. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510159112 PMID: 26392544
19. Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature. 1997; 387(6631):341-3. Epub 1997/05/22. doi: 10.1038/387341a0 PMID: 9163412
20. Hallsten M, Sandstrom U. [Distribution of medical research support: men without contacts are treated unfairly]. Lakartidningen. 2009; 106(30-31):1872-3. Epub 2009/09/11. PMID: 19739437
21. Waisbren SE, Bowles H, Hasan T, Zou KH, Emans SJ, Goldberg C, et al. Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty. Journal of women's health (2002). 2008; 17(2):207-14. Epub 2008/03/07.
22. Bedi G, Van Dam NT, Munafo M. Gender inequality in awarded research grants. Lancet (London, England). 2012; 380(9840):474. Epub 2012/08/07.
23. Svider PF, D'Aguillo CM, White PE, Pashkova AA, Bhagat N, Langer PD, et al. Gender differences in successful National Institutes of Health funding in ophthalmology. Journal of surgical education. 2014; 71(5):680-8. Epub 2014/04/30. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.01.020 PMID: 24776863
24. Wold A, Wennerås C. Nepotism and sexism in peer review. Nature. 1997; 387(6631):341-3. doi: 10.1038/387341a0 PMID: 9163412
25. Kaatz A, Magua MW, Zimmerman D, Carnes M. A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2015; 90(1):69.
26. Kaatz A, Lee YG, Potvien A, Magua W, Filut A, Bhattacharya A, et al. Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference? Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2016; 91(8):1080-8. Epub 2016/06/09.
27. Philogene S, Lal B, Chaturvedi R, Zhu A, Huges MB, Shipp S, et al. FY 2004-2008 NIH Director's Pioneer Award Process Evaluation - Comprehensive Report. Final Report. January 2010. Prepared for the National Institutes of Health. Washington DC: Institute for Defense Analyses, Science and Technology Policy Institute, 2010.
28. Carnes M, Geller S, Fine E, Sheridan J, Handelsman J. NIH Director's Pioneer Awards: could the selection process be biased against women? Journal of women's health (2002). 2005; 14(8):684-91. Epub 2005/10/20.
29. Plank-Bazinet JL, Bunker Whittington K, Cassidy SK, Filart R, Cornelison TL, Begg L, et al. Programmatic Efforts at the National Institutes of Health to Promote and Support the Careers of Women in Biomedical Science. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2016; 91(8):1057-64. Epub 2016/05/19.
30. Davies DSC. Women in Science letter from Professor Dame Sally C Davies [online] London, United Kingdom2011. [August 2016]. http://www.medschools.ac.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Letter-from-Dame-Sally-Davies---Women-in-Science.pdf.
31. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005; 8(1):19-32.
32. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2015 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews [Internet]. 2015. http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual-Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews-2015-v2.pdf.
33. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC medicine. 2015; 13:224. Epub 2015/09/18. doi: 10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 PMID: 26377409
34. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. P'rred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Annals of internal medicine. 2009; 151(4):264-9. PMID: 19622511
35. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Grey Matters: a practical tool for searching health-related grey literature [Web Page]. Canada: CADTH; 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/resources/finding-evidence/grey-matters.
36. Knowledge Translation Program. synthesi.SR Toronto: Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital. [cited 2016]. http://www.breakthroughkt.ca/login.php.
37. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC medical research methodology. 2016; 16:15. Epub 2016/02/10. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4 PMID: 26857112
38. Ledin A, Bornmann L, Gannon F, Wallon G. A persistent problem. Traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. EMBO reports. 2007; 8(11):982-7. Epub 2007/11/02. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401109 PMID: 17972895
39. Kamdin. Mind the Gap, A Statistical Approach to Understanding Gender Inequality in the Physical Sciences. USA2014. p. 1-44.
40. Gutknecht-Gmeiner M LL, Stöger E, de Ridder W, Strahm P, Strahm E, Koski L, Stalker B, Hollstein R, Allulli G, Bech Kristensen O. European Peer Review Manual for initial VET. Austria: 2007.
41. Kaatz A, Gutierrez B, Carnes M. Threats to objectivity in peer review: the case of gender. Trends in pharmacological sciences. 2014; 35(8):371-3. Epub 2014/08/05. doi: 10.1016/j.tips.2014.06.005 PMID: 25086743
42. Hewitt T. Open Letter to University Presidents from the Canada Research Chairs Program: Canada Research Chairs; 2016. [August 2016]. http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/whats-new-quoi-de-neuf/2016/letter-lettre-eng.aspx.
43. Craig N. ERC awards biased against women, preliminary study says: Research Professional, Research Research Ltd; 2016. [December 2016]. http://www.researchresearch.com/news/article/?articleId=1364434.
44. Trix F, Psenka C. Exploring the color of glass: Letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse & Society. 2003; 14(2):191-220.
45. Isaac C, Lee B, Carnes M. Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: a systematic review. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2009; 84(10):1440.
46. Girod S, Fassiotto M, Grewal D, Ku MC, Sriram N, Nosek BA, et al. Reducing Implicit Gender Leadership Bias in Academic Medicine With an Educational Intervention. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2016.
47. Carnes M, Devine PG, Manwell LB, Byars-Winston A, Fine E, Ford CE, et al. Effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges. 2015; 90(2):221.
48. Mainguy G, Motamedi MR, Mietchen D. Peer review - the newcomers' perspective. PLoS biology. 2005; 3(9):e326. Epub 2005/09/10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030326 PMID: 16149851
49. Goldin C, Rouse C. Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of" Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians. The American Economic Review. 2000; 90(4):715-41.
50. Smith J. Why companies are using 'blind auditions' to hire top talent 2015. [September 2016]. http://www.businessinsider.com/companies-are-using-blind-auditions-to-hire-top-talent-2015-5.
51. Khosla V. Blind audition helps remove gender bias in recruitment 2016. [September 2016]. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/jobs/blind-audition-helps-remove-gender-bias-in-recruitment/articleshow/51786855.cms.
52. Bauer CC, Baltes BB. Reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on performance evaluations. Sex Roles. 2002; 47(9-10):465-76.
53. Caffrey L, Wyatt D, Fudge N, Mattingley H, Williamson C, McKevitt C. Gender equity programmes in academic medicine: a realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes. BMJ open. 2016; 6(9): e012090. Epub 2016/09/10. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012090 PMID: 27609850