ReviewResearch integrity and peer review2023
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Research integrity and peer review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Degree Background and NIH K-to-R01 Transition Among Investigators Using Experimental Neuroscience to Advance Psychiatry.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2026Article
- Gender disparities in securing national clinical research program (PHRC-N) funding in France: a retrospective analysis of the 2022 campaign.Health research policy and systems · 2026Observational
- Fostering equity for women in gastroenterology - a United European Gastroenterology call.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Article
- Empowering resilience: celebrating and accelerating women's transformative contributions to plant abiotic stress research (2010-2025).Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Opening the review: perceptions and challenges of Open Science at CSP.Cadernos de saude publica · 2026Article
- Girls just wanna have funds: a new Transparent Reporting Scale for evaluating grant data reporting from funding agencies.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2026Article
- Article
- Gastroenterology Training and Career in Women: Challenges and Opportunities.United European gastroenterology journal · 2025Review
- Article
- An experimental study of simulated grant peer review: Gender differences and psychometric characteristics of proposal scores.PloS one · 2024Article
- Exploring gender differences in Physiotherapy research in Italy: a cross-sectional analysis.Archives of physiotherapyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women's lesser representation in the sciences. This study's objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender differences in grant award acceptance rates and reapplication award acceptance rates (potential bias in peer review outcomes) and other grant outcomes.
methodsThe review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232153) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. We searched Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and Web of Science for the timeframe 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2020, and forward and backward citations. Studies were included that reported data, by gender, on any of the following: grant applications or reapplications, awards, award amounts, award acceptance rates, or reapplication award acceptance rates. Studies that duplicated data reported in another study were excluded. Gender differences were investigated by meta-analyses and generalized linear mixed models. Doi plots and LFK indices were used to assess reporting bias.
resultsThe searches identified 199 records, of which 13 were eligible. An additional 42 sources from forward and backward searches were eligible, for a total of 55 sources with data on one or more outcomes. The data from these studies ranged from 1975 to 2020: 49 sources were published papers and six were funders' reports (the latter were identified by forwards and backwards searches). Twenty-nine studies reported person-level data, 25 reported application-level data, and one study reported both: person-level data were used in analyses. Award acceptance rates were 1% higher for men, which was not significantly different from women (95% CI 3% more for men to 1% more for women, k = 36, n = 303,795 awards and 1,277,442 applications, I
conclusionsThe proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.
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.