ArticlePloS one2024
An experimental study of simulated grant peer review: Gender differences and psychometric characteristics of proposal scores.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Homophily in grant evaluations.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- An experimental study of simulated grant peer review: Gender differences and psychometric characteristics of proposal scores.PloS one · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Peer review is a decisive factor in selecting research grant proposals for funding. The usefulness of peer review depends in part on the agreement of multiple reviewers' judgments of the same proposal, and on each reviewer's consistency in judging proposals. Peer reviewers are also instructed to disregard characteristics that are not among the evaluation criteria. However, for example, the gender identity-of the investigator or reviewer-may be associated with differing evaluations. This experiment sought to characterize the psychometric properties of peer review among 605 experienced peer reviewers and to examine possible differences in peer review judgments based on peer reviewer and investigator gender. Participants evaluated National Institutes of Health-style primary reviewers' overall impact statements that summarized the study's purpose, its overall evaluation, and its strengths and weaknesses in five criterion areas: significance, approach, investigator, innovation, and environment. Evaluations were generally consistent between reviewers and within reviewers over a two-week period. However, there was less consistency in judging proposals with weaknesses. Regarding gender differences, women reviewers tended to provide more positive evaluations, and women investigators received better overall evaluations. Unsuccessful grant applicants use reviewer feedback to improve their proposals, which could be made more challenging with inconsistent reviews. Peer reviewer training and calibration could increase reviewer consistency, which is especially relevant for proposals with weaknesses according to this study's results. Evidence of systematic differences in proposal scores based on investigator and reviewer gender may also indicate the usefulness of calibration and training. For example, peer reviewers could score practice proposals and discuss differences prior to independently scoring assigned proposals.
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.