Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38525941›Full record

ArticleeLife2024

Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award.

Anne E Hultgren, Nicole M F Patras, Jenna Hicks

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Anne E HultgrenArnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, Irvine, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8266-1050
Nicole M F PatrasArnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, Irvine, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6229-0038
Jenna HicksHealth Research Alliance, Research Park, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4486-9926

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organizations that fund research are keen to ensure that their grant selection processes are fair and equitable for all applicants. In 2020, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation introduced blinding to the first stage of the process used to review applications for Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) awards: applicants were instructed to blind the technical proposal in their initial Letter of Intent by omitting their name, gender, gender-identifying pronouns, and institutional information. Here we examine the impact of this change by comparing the data on gender and institutional prestige of the applicants in the first four years of the new policy (BYI award years 2021-2024) with data on the last four years of the old policy (2017-2020). We find that under the new policy, the distribution of applicants invited to submit a full application shifted from those affiliated with institutions regarded as more prestigious to those outside of this group, and that this trend continued through to the final program awards. We did not find evidence of a shift in the distribution of applicants with respect to gender.

Indexed as

Awards and PrizesResearch PersonnelFinancing, OrganizedHumansPolicybiochemistrychemical biologydouble-blind peer reviewfundinggender biasinstitutional prestige biasmeta-researchnonepeer review

Identifiers

PMID38525941
PMCPMC10963027

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.