ArticlePloS one2016
Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors That Facilitate and Hinder Historically Black Colleges and Universities Faculty Research Success.Journal of diversity in higher education · 2026Article
- Academic productivity and industry trends of fellowship-trained U.S. academic rhinologists.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2025Article
- Priorities and expectations of researchers, funders, patients and the public regarding equity in medical research and funding: results from the PERSPECT qualitative study.International journal for equity in health · 2025Article
- Six-decade research bias towards fancy and familiar bird species.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- Evolving funding strategies for research software: Insights from an international survey of research funders.PloS one · 2025Article
- Mapping philanthropic support of science.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Targeted, actionable and fair: Reviewer reports as feedback and its effect on ECR career choices.Research Evaluation · 2023Article
- Commentary on Highly Successful Female Educational Psychologists: Equity and Intersectionality in Success Definitions.Educational psychology review · 2023Review
- Getting funded in a highly fluctuating environment: Shifting from excellence to luck and timing.PloS one · 2022Article
- The unintended consequences of the pandemic on non-pandemic research activities.Research policy · 2022Article
- An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes.eLife · 2021Article
- Implicit bias in healthcare: clinical practice, research and decision making.Future healthcare journal · 2021Article
- Generating Evidence From Contextual Clinical Research in Low- to Middle Income Countries: A Roadmap Based on Theory of Change.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Review
- Faculty Time Allocation at Historically Black Universities and Its Relationship to Institutional Expectations.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions.Higher education · 2021Review
- Article
- Opinion: The National Institutes of Health needs to better balance funding distributions among US institutions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019Article
- Building the Case for Localized Approaches to HIV: Structural Conditions and Health System Capacity to Address the HIV/AIDS Epidemic in Six US Cities.AIDS and behavior · 2018Review
- The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers.eLife · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Federal funding for basic scientific research is the cornerstone of societal progress, economy, health and well-being. There is a direct relationship between financial investment in science and a nation's scientific discoveries, making it a priority for governments to distribute public funding appropriately in support of the best science. However, research grant proposal success rate and funding level can be skewed toward certain groups of applicants, and such skew may be driven by systemic bias arising during grant proposal evaluation and scoring. Policies to best redress this problem are not well established. Here, we show that funding success and grant amounts for applications to Canada's Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant program (2011-2014) are consistently lower for applicants from small institutions. This pattern persists across applicant experience levels, is consistent among three criteria used to score grant proposals, and therefore is interpreted as representing systemic bias targeting applicants from small institutions. When current funding success rates are projected forward, forecasts reveal that future science funding at small schools in Canada will decline precipitously in the next decade, if skews are left uncorrected. We show that a recently-adopted pilot program to bolster success by lowering standards for select applicants from small institutions will not erase funding skew, nor will several other post-evaluation corrective measures. Rather, to support objective and robust review of grant applications, it is necessary for research councils to address evaluation skew directly, by adopting procedures such as blind review of research proposals and bibliometric assessment of performance. Such measures will be important in restoring confidence in the objectivity and fairness of science funding decisions. Likewise, small institutions can improve their research success by more strongly supporting productive researchers and developing competitive graduate programming opportunities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.