IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v50y2023i3p371-381..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Online panel work through a gender lens: implications of digital peer review meetings

Author

Listed:
  • Helen Peterson
  • Liisa Husu

Abstract

Previous studies have highlighted how the academic peer review system has been marked by gender bias and nepotism. Panel meetings arranged by research funding organisations (RFOs), where reviewers must explain and account for their assessment and scoring of grant applications, can potentially mitigate and disrupt patterns of inequality. They can however also constitute arenas where biases are reproduced. This article explores, through a gender lens, the shift from face-to-face to digital peer review meetings in a Swedish RFO, focusing on the implications for an unbiased and fair grant allocation process. Drawing on twenty-two interviews with panellists and staff in the RFO, the analysis identifies both benefits and challenges of this shift, regarding use of resources, meeting dynamics, micropolitics, social glue, and possibilities for group reflections. RFOs deliberating digitalisation of their peer review processes need to consider these implications to develop policies promoting unbiased and fair grant allocation processes and procedures.

Suggested Citation

  • Helen Peterson & Liisa Husu, 2023. "Online panel work through a gender lens: implications of digital peer review meetings," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(3), pages 371-381.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:3:p:371-381.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scac075
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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. Sarvenaz Sarabipour & Aziz Khan & Yu Fen Samantha Seah & Aneth D. Mwakilili & Fiona N. Mumoki & Pablo J. Sáez & Benjamin Schwessinger & Humberto J. Debat & Tomislav Mestrovic, 2021. "Changing scientific meetings for the better," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 296-300, March.
    2. Győrffy, Balázs & Herman, Péter & Szabó, István, 2020. "Research funding: past performance is a stronger predictor of future scientific output than reviewer scores," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(3).
    3. Liv Langfeldt & Mats Benner & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ernst H. Kristiansen & Dag W. Aksnes & Siri Brorstad Borlaug & Hanne Foss Hansen & Egil Kallerud & Antti Pelkonen, 2015. "Excellence and growth dynamics: A comparative study of the Matthew effect," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(5), pages 661-675.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Hren, Darko & Pina, David G. & Norman, Christopher R. & Marušić, Ana, 2022. "What makes or breaks competitive research proposals? A mixed-methods analysis of research grant evaluation reports," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    2. Fernandez Martinez, Roberto & Lostado Lorza, Ruben & Santos Delgado, Ana Alexandra & Piedra, Nelson, 2021. "Use of classification trees and rule-based models to optimize the funding assignment to research projects: A case study of UTPL," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    3. Shahd Al-Janabi & Lee Wei Lim & Luca Aquili, 2021. "Development of a tool to accurately predict UK REF funding allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 8049-8062, September.
    4. Tóth, Tamás & Demeter, Márton & Csuhai, Sándor & Major, Zsolt Balázs, 2024. "When career-boosting is on the line: Equity and inequality in grant evaluation, productivity, and the educational backgrounds of Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions individual fellows in social sciences an," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2).
    5. Gemma Elizabeth Derrick & Alessandra Zimmermann & Helen Greaves & Jonathan Best & Richard Klavans, 2024. "Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 648-657.
    6. Dag W. Aksnes & Liv Langfeldt & Paul Wouters, 2019. "Citations, Citation Indicators, and Research Quality: An Overview of Basic Concepts and Theories," SAGE Open, , vol. 9(1), pages 21582440198, February.
    7. Torger Möller & Marion Schmidt & Stefan Hornbostel, 2016. "Assessing the effects of the German Excellence Initiative with bibliometric methods," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 2217-2239, December.
    8. Katchanov, Yurij L. & Markova, Yulia V. & Shmatko, Natalia A., 2023. "Empirical demonstration of the Matthew effect in scientific research careers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    9. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    10. Spiegel, Yossi & Toivanen, Otto, 2022. "From conference submission to publication and citations: Evidence from the EARIE conference," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    11. Jiaying Liu & Tao Tang & Xiangjie Kong & Amr Tolba & Zafer AL-Makhadmeh & Feng Xia, 2018. "Understanding the advisor–advisee relationship via scholarly data analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 161-180, July.
    12. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Haddawy, Peter & Cicero, Tindaro & Hassan, Saeed-Ul, 2017. "The solitude of stars. An analysis of the distributed excellence model of European universities," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 435-454.
    13. Marton Demeter & Agnes Jele & Zsolt Balázs Major, 2022. "The model of maximum productivity for research universities SciVal author ranks, productivity, university rankings, and their implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(8), pages 4335-4361, August.
    14. Martin Thomas Falk & Eva Hagsten, 2023. "Reverse adoption of information and communication technology among organisers of academic conferences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(3), pages 1963-1985, March.
    15. Wen Lou & Jiangen He & Lingxin Zhang & Zhijie Zhu & Yongjun Zhu, 2023. "Support behind the scenes: the relationship between acknowledgement, coauthor, and citation in Nobel articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5767-5790, October.
    16. Jinyang Dong & Jiamou Liu & Tiezhong Liu, 2021. "The impact of top scientists on the community development of basic research directed by government funding: evidence from program 973 in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8561-8579, October.
    17. Giuseppe Calignano & Rune Dahl Fitjar & Nina Hjertvikrem, 2018. "Innovation networks and green restructuring: Which path development can EU Framework Programmes stimulate in Norway?," PEGIS geo-disc-2018_05, Institute for Economic Geography and GIScience, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    18. Péter Sasvári & Tamás Kaiser & Krisztián Várföldi & Csaba Fási, 2023. "Scientific Excellence and Publication Patterns: The Winning Applicants of the Bolyai János Research Scholarship in Hungary in 2021," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-18, September.
    19. de Frutos-Belizón, Jesús & García-Carbonell, Natalia & Ruíz-Martínez, Marta & Sánchez-Gardey, Gonzalo, 2023. "Disentangling international research collaboration in the Spanish academic context: Is there a desirable researcher human capital profile?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    20. Guimón , José & Chaminade , Cristina & Maggi , Claudio, 2015. "Policies to attract R&D-related FDI in Chile: Aligning incentives with local linkages and absorptive capacities," Papers in Innovation Studies 2015/48, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.

    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:scippl:v:50:y:2023:i:3:p:371-381.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    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.