ArticleNature human behaviour2026
Homophily in grant evaluations.
Article in Nature human behaviour, 2026. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Funding agencies play a central role in science by awarding grants to researchers. Grant review can be influenced by bias, including preferences for applicants who share reviewers' gender, country or citizenship. Using 37,073 applications for European Research Council grants with multiple reviews per proposal, we show that reviewers who share an applicant's country of work or citizenship award higher scores than reviewers with no such match. This effect is strongest when both country and citizenship align. Shared gender increases scores to a smaller extent. Further analyses indicate that these findings are unlikely to be driven by shared tastes or informational advantages. At the panel level, correlational evidence shows that applicants are more likely to advance past the first stage when the chair or more panel members share their country of work or citizenship. Country of work and citizenship may therefore be relevant sources of bias in international grant review.
Identifiers
42595884What 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.