Review
Biology
Stephen A. Gallo, Joanne H. Sullivan, Dajoie R. Croslan
Summary: This study examined the participation of MSI-based scientists in grant reviews and found a lower rate compared to TWI-based scientists. Barriers identified by MSI-based scientists included lack of invitations and limited time. However, the majority of respondents expressed interest in reviewing and receiving training.
Editorial Material
Biology
Michael A. Taffe
Summary: Concealing the identity of the principal investigator helps reduce the success gap between white and African American or Black researchers in NIH grant applications, but it does not completely eliminate it.
Review
Education & Educational Research
Sayaka Sato, Pascal Mark Gygax, Julian Randall, Marianne Schmid Mast
Summary: The literature on gender inequality in academia highlights the challenges faced by female researchers during their academic careers, especially in the peer review process of research grant funding. While some argue for the existence of gender bias, others demonstrate gender equality in these processes. More comprehensive research is needed to further the debate, addressing individual and systemic biases as well as global social barriers. Special attention should be given to the critical methodological challenges in examining gender biases during grant peer reviews. The paper concludes by suggesting directions for future research to improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.
News Item
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Max Kozlov
Summary: The US biomedical agency has decided to stop scoring researchers' expertise and institutions during grant evaluations.
Article
Biology
Richard K. Nakamura, Lee S. Mann, Mark D. Lindner, Jeremy Braithwaite, Mei-Ching Chen, Adrian Vancea, Noni Byrnes, Valerie Durrant, Bruce Reed
Summary: In this experiment, redacting personal information reduced reviewers' ability to correctly guess applicant identity, but did not eliminate it completely. Findings suggest that applications from White investigators typically scored higher than those from Black investigators, with redaction reducing the difference by about half.
Review
Management
Thomas Feliciani, Michael Morreau, Junwen Luo, Pablo Lucas, Kalpana Shankar
Summary: This study aims to explore how factors relating to grades and grading affect the correctness of choices made by review panels among submitted proposals, and identify interventions in panel design that can increase the correctness of choices. The results of the experiment indicate that increasing the number of grades used by panel members and giving panels a greater capacity for discriminating among proposals can improve the correctness of choices, while differences in grading standards among panel members do not significantly decrease correctness.
Article
Humanities, Multidisciplinary
Stefano Bianchini, Patrick Llerena, Sila Ocalan-Ozel, Emre Ozel
Summary: This study examines the link between grant proposal peer-review and gender representation in research consortia. The findings show that consortia with a higher proportion of female principal investigators (PI) receive systematically unfavorable evaluations in terms of success rate and scores from panel members and external reviewers.
HUMANITIES & SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS
(2022)
Review
Ecology
Charles W. Fox, Jennifer Meyer, Emilie Aime
Summary: There is substantial evidence that systemic biases influence the scholarly peer review process. The effectiveness of double-blind peer review in reducing these biases is uncertain, as few randomized trials have manipulated blinding of author identities for journal submissions.
FUNCTIONAL ECOLOGY
(2023)
Article
Management
Thijs Bol, Mathijs de Vaan, Arnout van de Rijt
Summary: Previous studies have shown no systematic differences in funding rates between female and male scientists in international grant competitions. However, a new study reveals that men receive higher evaluation scores, but that this gender difference is neutralized by panels giving lower scores to women to achieve gender equality in funding distribution, reallocating funds back to women.
Review
Obstetrics & Gynecology
Adina R. Kern-Goldberger, Richard James, Vincenzo Berghella, Emily S. Miller
Summary: This systematic review explores the impact of double-blind vs single-blind peer review on publication rates by perceived author gender. The results show mixed findings, but there is reasonable evidence suggesting the existence of gender bias in scientific publishing and the potential for double-blind review to mitigate its impact. It is important to further evaluate the processes in place to create unbiased evidence in fields with a majority of female professionals, such as obstetrics and gynecology.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY
(2022)
Article
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Misha Teplitskiy, Hao Peng, Andrea Blasco, Karim R. Lakhani
Summary: This study investigates the association between novelty and manuscript acceptance, finding that higher novelty is consistently associated with higher acceptance. Disagreement among peer reviewers was not related to novelty or conventionality, and editors tend to select manuscripts with higher novelty. This challenges the perception that peer review is inherently resistant to novelty.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(2022)
Article
Ecology
Olivia M. Smith, Kayla L. Davis, Riley B. Pizza, Robin Waterman, Kara C. Dobson, Brianna Foster, Julie C. Jarvey, Leonard N. Jones, Wendy Leuenberger, Nan Nourn, Emily E. Conway, Cynthia M. Fiser, Zoe A. Hansen, Ani Hristova, Caitlin Mack, Alyssa N. Saunders, Olivia J. Utley, Moriah L. Young, Courtney L. Davis
Summary: A meta-analysis of peer-review data from over 300,000 biological sciences manuscripts indicates that authors from historically excluded groups experience worse review outcomes, and there is limited data on interventions to address bias in peer review. The study highlights the need for evidence-based strategies to mitigate bias and improve diversity in the peer review process, as well as the lack of implementation of such policies in current journals.
NATURE ECOLOGY & EVOLUTION
(2023)
Article
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling
Summary: In peer review, the evaluation of research proposal risks is a stronger predictor of scores than the evaluation of proposal strengths. Reviewer scoring leniency predicts overall and criteria scores. The interpretation of proposal risks contributes to reviewer scoring variability.
Article
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Daisuke Kyogoku, Yoko Wada
Summary: Scientific grant applications are often subject to gender bias in peer review, with male applicants having higher success rates than female applicants. This study analyzes the success rates of different fellowship categories offered by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) and finds consistent gender gaps, with males having higher success rates. The gender gaps vary across research fields and are significantly associated with the representation of female applicants. Unintentional gender bias in the review process is suggested as a potential cause for these gaps.
Article
Chemistry, Medicinal
Chrystal D. Bruce, Patricia M. Flatt, Sarah R. Kirk, Elizabeth Roberts-Kirchhoff, Hala G. Schepmann
Summary: A peer-mentoring network funded by the National Science Foundation ADVANCE program greatly impacted the career trajectory of five women chemistry faculty at predominantly undergraduate institutions, enabling them to become leaders in their own right and implement positive changes. To extend this benefit to more women in STEM, a model has been developed to support faculty and administrators from 51 institutions across the country.
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING
(2022)
Article
Ethics
Stephen A. Gallo, Lisa A. Thompson, Karen B. Schmaling, Scott R. Glisson
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
(2020)
Article
Psychiatry
Karen B. Schmaling, Jessica L. Fales, Marsha M. Linehan
Summary: This study found that somatization significantly decreased through the treatment of borderline personality disorder (BPD), with emotional avoidance acting as a mediator. Therefore, it is important to assess somatization symptoms, especially in the context of emotional avoidance, when treating BPD, and focus on developing emotional regulation skills.
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS
(2021)
Review
Biology
Stephen A. Gallo, Joanne H. Sullivan, Dajoie R. Croslan
Summary: This study examined the participation of MSI-based scientists in grant reviews and found a lower rate compared to TWI-based scientists. Barriers identified by MSI-based scientists included lack of invitations and limited time. However, the majority of respondents expressed interest in reviewing and receiving training.
Editorial Material
Psychology, Clinical
Karen B. Schmaling
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY-SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
(2022)
Review
Psychology, Clinical
Jessica L. Fales, Karen B. Schmaling, Meghan A. Culbertson
Summary: The study highlights significant differences in acute pain processing between individuals with BPD and healthy controls, with BPD patients showing lower pain ratings and higher pain thresholds. Interestingly, under conditions of emotional distress, BPD patients exhibited higher pain tolerance compared to control subjects. These findings suggest a complex relationship between emotional states and pain perception among individuals with BPD.
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY-SCIENCE AND PRACTICE
(2021)
Article
Biology
Stephen A. Gallo, James M. Verdier, Scott L. Collins
Article
Multidisciplinary Sciences
Stephen A. Gallo, Karen B. Schmaling
Summary: In peer review, the evaluation of research proposal risks is a stronger predictor of scores than the evaluation of proposal strengths. Reviewer scoring leniency predicts overall and criteria scores. The interpretation of proposal risks contributes to reviewer scoring variability.
Article
Psychiatry
Karen B. Schmaling, Robert M. Kaplan
Summary: This study examined the reporting of depression trial results registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and found a significant delay and underreporting of results. Moreover, it was observed that some results were contrary to the expected direction and the effect sizes were relatively small. These findings highlight the importance of timely and comprehensive reporting of trial results to avoid biases in systematic literature reviews.
JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
(2023)
Review
Ethics
Karen B. Schmaling, Stephen A. Gallo
Summary: This study conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate gender differences in grant applications and outcomes in the sciences. The findings suggest that men have higher reapplication award acceptance rates, while women receive smaller award amounts and fewer awards.
RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW
(2023)
Article
Medicine, General & Internal
Karen B. Schmaling, Hailey S. Landon, Tiffany B. Nguyen, Robert M. Kaplan
Summary: Depression affects a significant portion of the adult population in the USA, with treatment research reporting transparency needing improvements; studies with reported results are more likely to have hypotheses, include drug treatment conditions, and have related publications compared to those without reported results.
BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
(2022)
Review
Medicine, General & Internal
Karen Schmaling, Robert M. Kaplan, Franz Porzsolt
Summary: The characteristics of depression treatment studies identified using efficacy or effectiveness search terms differ in some aspects, but are comparable for most coded characteristics. This lack of distinguishable features may impede efforts to bridge the gap between research and practice.
BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
(2021)
Article
Information Science & Library Science
Shreya Chandrasekharan, Mariam Zaka, Stephen Gallo, Wenxi Zhao, Dmitriy Korobskiy, Tandy Warnow, George Chacko
Summary: The researchers introduced a new method to analyze scientific communities and found that certain authors may represent valid communities of practice. The study revealed that popular domain-independent criteria for graphical cluster quality must be carefully interpreted in the context of searching for author communities, highlighting the role of contextual criteria.
QUANTITATIVE SCIENCE STUDIES
(2021)
