ArticleScience advances2020
NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores.
Article in Science advances, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Sociodemographic reporting and sample composition over 3 decades of psychopathology research: A systematic review and quantitative synthesis.Journal of psychopathology and clinical science · 2024Pooled it
- Effect of a Workshop to Break the Bias Habit for Internal Medicine Faculty: A Multisite Cluster Randomized Controlled Study.Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges · 2023Trial
- Gender and disciplinary differences in grant proposal peer review: Content and sentiment in 39,280 reports.PloS one · 2026Article
- Understanding the Lived Experiences of the members of the Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research through Collins' Matrix of Domination Framework.CBE life sciences education · 2025Article
- Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Increasing diversity in the nutrition, obesity, and diabetes biomedical workforce: the BRIDGES consortium.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2025Article
- Article
- Increasing Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in Rare Disease Clinical Trials.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
- Inequities in Academic Publishing: Where Is the Evidence and What Can Be Done?American journal of public health · 2024Article
- The urgency of restructuring the landscape of behavioral medicine: Commentary from early-career diversity institute scholars.Translational behavioral medicine · 2024Article
- Navigating Hostile Workplaces and Educational Spaces Within Health Services and Policy Research.Health equity · 2024Article
- Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A road map to equity in academia.Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) · 2023Article
- Increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion in the fields of nutrition and obesity: A roadmap to equity in academia.The American journal of clinical nutrition · 2023Article
- To dismantle structural racism in science, scientists need to learn how it works.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023Review
- A manifesto for applying behavioural science.Nature human behaviour · 2023Review
- Article
- Junior scientists spotlight social bonds in seminars for diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM.PloS one · 2023Article
- Article
- Towards a common lexicon for equity, diversity, and inclusion work in academic medicine.BMC medical education · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications' final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014-2016, we examine assigned reviewers' preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in commensuration-the process of combining criterion scores into overall impact scores-disadvantage black applicants. Using multilevel models and matching on key variables including career stage, gender, and area of science, we find little evidence for racial disparities emerging in the process of combining preliminary criterion scores into preliminary overall impact scores. Instead, preliminary criterion scores fully account for racial disparities-yet do not explain all of the variability-in preliminary overall impact scores.
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.