ReviewHigher education2021
The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions.
Review in Higher education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applicants as reviewers: a mixed methods evaluation of the risks, benefits, and potential of distributed peer review for grant funding allocations.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- The Leaky Pipeline of Injury: Disparities at Multiple Junctures for Children with Head Trauma.The Journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Girls just wanna have funds: a new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding agencies.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Lottery before peer review is associated with increased female representation and reduced estimated economic cost in a German funding line.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Threats to grant peer review: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Equality and diversity in research: building an inclusive future.BMC research notes · 2025Article
- Promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in research and funding: reflections from a digital manufacturing research network.Research integrity and peer review · 2024Article
- Sex and authorship in global cancer research.BMJ oncology · 2024Article
- Are females in classical hematology getting a fair share? Uncovering gender disparities in NIH R01 grants.Frontiers in sociology · 2024Article
- The replication crisis has led to positive structural, procedural, and community changes.Communications psychology · 2023Review
- Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Review
- Female Dynamics in Authorship of Scientific Publications in the Public Library of Science: A 10-year Bibliometric Analysis of Biomedical Research.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2023Article
- Community voices: sowing, germinating, flourishing as strategies to support inclusion in STEM.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Resilient women scientists and the COVID-19 pandemic: an OWSD analysis.Economia politica (Bologna, Italy) · 2022Article
- Determining factors of participation and success rates in research funding competitions: Case study.PloS one · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.
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.