ArticlePloS one2025
Negotiating science funding: The interplay of merit, bias, and administrative discretion in grant allocation in Kazakhstan.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
This paper analyzes 4,488 applications from a grant funding competition held in 2017 in Kazakhstan. The competition had a two-stage design: first, anonymous subject matter experts evaluated the applications' scientific potential; then, open panels of local science managers made the final decisions. We analyze a range of bibliometric, institutional, and demographic variables associated with the applications and show that review scores account for only a small variation in success rates. The most important factor is the organizational closeness to decision-making. Gender also plays a role: we find that, net of academic merit, men and women investigators receive similar review scores, yet the panelists grant awards to men more often than to women. We further demonstrate that the gender gap emerges due to decisions made in a specific domain-Natural Resource Management.
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.