IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0169718.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Andrea C Tricco
  • Sonia M Thomas
  • Jesmin Antony
  • Patricia Rios
  • Reid Robson
  • Reena Pattani
  • Marco Ghassemi
  • Shannon Sullivan
  • Inthuja Selvaratnam
  • Cara Tannenbaum
  • Sharon E Straus

Abstract

Objective: To review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants. Methods: Studies 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 A search for grey (i.e., difficult to locate or unpublished) literature was conducted and experts in the field were consulted to identify additional potentially relevant articles.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. Results: After 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. Conclusions: There 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrea C Tricco & Sonia M Thomas & Jesmin Antony & Patricia Rios & Reid Robson & Reena Pattani & Marco Ghassemi & Shannon Sullivan & Inthuja Selvaratnam & Cara Tannenbaum & Sharon E Straus, 2017. "Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0169718
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169718
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169718
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169718&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0169718?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0169718. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.