Literature DB >> 30953009

Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals.

Patrick S Forscher1,2, William T L Cox3, Markus Brauer3, Patricia G Devine4.   

Abstract

Many granting agencies allow reviewers to know the identity of a proposal's principal investigator (PI), which opens the possibility that reviewers discriminate on the basis of PI race and gender. We investigated this experimentally with 48 NIH R01 grant proposals, representing a broad range of NIH-funded science. We modified PI names to create separate white male, white female, black male and black female versions of each proposal, and 412 scientists each submitted initial reviews for 3 proposals. We find little to no race or gender bias in initial R01 evaluations, and additionally find that any bias that might have been present must be negligible in size. This conclusion was robust to a wide array of statistical model specifications. Pragmatically, important bias may be present in other aspects of the granting process, but our evidence suggests that it is not present in the initial round of R01 reviews.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30953009      PMCID: PMC6699508          DOI: 10.1038/s41562-018-0517-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Hum Behav        ISSN: 2397-3374


  13 in total

1.  Accounting for the effects of accountability.

Authors:  J S Lerner; P E Tetlock
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.

Authors:  D P CROWNE; D MARLOWE
Journal:  J Consult Psychol       Date:  1960-08

3.  National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track.

Authors:  Wendy M Williams; Stephen J Ceci
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-04-13       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  US and non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias.

Authors:  A M Link
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science.

Authors:  Stephen J Ceci; Wendy M Williams
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-02-07       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution.

Authors:  Anna Kaatz; Wairimu Magua; David R Zimmerman; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  OpenMx 2.0: Extended Structural Equation and Statistical Modeling.

Authors:  Michael C Neale; Michael D Hunter; Joshua N Pritikin; Mahsa Zahery; Timothy R Brick; Robert M Kirkpatrick; Ryne Estabrook; Timothy C Bates; Hermine H Maes; Steven M Boker
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.500

8.  Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items.

Authors:  Markus Brauer; John J Curtin
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2017-11-27

9.  Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

Authors:  Corinne A Moss-Racusin; John F Dovidio; Victoria L Brescoll; Mark J Graham; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.

Authors:  Andrew Tomkins; Min Zhang; William D Heavlin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions.

Authors:  Tessa E S Charlesworth; Mahzarin R Banaji
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2019-08-01       Impact factor: 6.167

2.  The Future of Women in Psychological Science.

Authors:  June Gruber; Jane Mendle; Kristen A Lindquist; Toni Schmader; Lee Anna Clark; Eliza Bliss-Moreau; Modupe Akinola; Lauren Atlas; Deanna M Barch; Lisa Feldman Barrett; Jessica L Borelli; Tiffany N Brannon; Silvia A Bunge; Belinda Campos; Jessica Cantlon; Rona Carter; Adrienne R Carter-Sowell; Serena Chen; Michelle G Craske; Amy J C Cuddy; Alia Crum; Lila Davachi; Angela L Duckworth; Sunny J Dutra; Naomi I Eisenberger; Melissa Ferguson; Brett Q Ford; Barbara L Fredrickson; Sherryl H Goodman; Alison Gopnik; Valerie Purdie Greenaway; Kate L Harkness; Mikki Hebl; Wendy Heller; Jill Hooley; Lily Jampol; Sheri L Johnson; Jutta Joormann; Katherine D Kinzler; Hedy Kober; Ann M Kring; Elizabeth Levy Paluck; Tania Lombrozo; Stella F Lourenco; Kateri McRae; Joan K Monin; Judith T Moskowitz; Misaki N Natsuaki; Gabriele Oettingen; Jennifer H Pfeifer; Nicole Prause; Darby Saxbe; Pamela K Smith; Barbara A Spellman; Virginia Sturm; Bethany A Teachman; Renee J Thompson; Lauren M Weinstock; Lisa A Williams
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2020-09-09

Review 3.  The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions.

Authors:  Sayaka Sato; Pascal Mark Gygax; Julian Randall; Marianne Schmid Mast
Journal:  High Educ (Dordr)       Date:  2020-10-03

Review 4.  U.S. Women Faculty in the Social Sciences Also Face Gender Inequalities.

Authors:  Bettina J Casad; Christina E Garasky; Taylor R Jancetic; Anne K Brown; Jillian E Franks; Christopher R Bach
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-05-26

5.  Topic choice contributes to the lower rate of NIH awards to African-American/black scientists.

Authors:  Travis A Hoppe; Aviva Litovitz; Kristine A Willis; Rebecca A Meseroll; Matthew J Perkins; B Ian Hutchins; Alison F Davis; Michael S Lauer; Hannah A Valantine; James M Anderson; George M Santangelo
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2019-10-09       Impact factor: 14.136

6.  A decade of decline: Grant funding for researchers with disabilities 2008 to 2018.

Authors:  Bonnielin K Swenor; Beatriz Munoz; Lisa M Meeks
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health.

Authors:  Michael A Taffe; Nicholas W Gilpin
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-01-18       Impact factor: 8.140

8.  Weak evidence of country- and institution-related status bias in the peer review of abstracts.

Authors:  Mathias Wullum Nielsen; Christine Friis Baker; Emer Brady; Michael Bang Petersen; Jens Peter Andersen
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 8.140

9.  Predoctoral MD-PhD grants as indicators of future NIH funding success.

Authors:  Shohini Ghosh-Choudhary; Neil Carleton; S Mehdi Nouraie; Corrine R Kliment; Richard A Steinman
Journal:  JCI Insight       Date:  2022-03-22

10.  Reflections on race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards.

Authors:  Donna K Ginther
Journal:  Mol Biol Cell       Date:  2022-01-01       Impact factor: 4.138

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.