SynthesisPloS one2017
Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current state of electronic problems lists in primary care: a rapid scoping review.Family practice · 2026Article
- Strategies for advancing inclusive biodiversity research through equitable practices and collective responsibility.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024Article
- Article
- A logic framework for addressing medical racism in academic medicine: an analysis of qualitative data.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Gender bias in academic medicine: a resumé study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Editorial: Women in anti-doping sciences & integrity in sport: 2021/22.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Article
- Ten actions to achieve gender equity among intensivists: the French Society of Intensive Care (FICS) model.Annals of intensive care · 2022Review
- Assessment of Implicit Gender Bias During Evaluation of Procedural Competency Among Emergency Medicine Residents.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Article
- Advancing gender equity in medicine.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Article
- Gender Differences in Hepatology Medical Literature.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Peer review for the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia in 2016 and 2017: a retrospective analysis by reviewer and author gender.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2020Article
- Gender Disparities in Academic Emergency Medicine: Strategies for the Recruitment, Retention, and Promotion of Women.AEM education and training · 2020Article
- Gender in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: Issues, Causes, Solutions.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019Review
- Article
- The foundation and consequences of gender bias in grant peer review processes.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Article
- Gender Parity in Critical Care Medicine.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017Review
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.
methodsStudies 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.
resultsAfter 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.
conclusionsThere 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.
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.