PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

Permanent URI for this communityhttps://gendermore.unimore.it/handle/123456789/1575

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.CanadaViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Grants & Awards

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Item type:Publication,
    The foundation and consequences of gender bias in grant peer review processes Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Morgan, Rosemary
    ;
    Hawkins, Kate
    ;
    Lundine, Jamie
    KEY POINTS Gender bias within the research grant review process worldwide is a manifestation of historical and systemic gender bias within academic institutions and beyond. For many reasons, women are underrepresented in academic leadership; their research is less frequently cited than that of men; and they may enjoy less credit for their published work than their male coauthors. Efforts to overhaul processes of research grant peer review must go hand in hand with larger projects that aim to shift traditional gender norms in academia through institutional policies that recognize gender bias and act to counter it.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Characterizing the Impact of Women in Academic IR: A 12-Year Analysis Open PDF 
    (2018)
    Xiao, N.
    ;
    Oliveira, D.F.M.
    ;
    Gupta, R.
    Purpose: To determine the representation of female interventional radiology (IR) investigators and elucidate possible gender-specific disparities. Materials and Methods: We analyzed 4,884 original, peer-reviewed articles from 2006–2017 in the Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology and CardioVascular and Interventional Radiology. Data abstraction and statistical analysis were performed for first and senior author gender, citations, and grants. Results: We found that 84% of first authors and 91.4% of senior authors were male (P <.01). No significant difference was observed versus expected in terms of author gender collaboration combinations (P = 1.00). Each year reflected a 0.3%–0.4% increase in articles published by women (first author: B-value: 0.3, P =.05; senior author: B-value: 0.4, P =.01). No difference was observed in citations or grants received between genders. Female authors received increasing citations and grants each year (citations: first author: B-value: 0.24, P =.05; senior author: B-value: 0.16, P =.15; grants: B-value: 0.88, P =.02). Conclusions: Women are equally as productive as men as determined by metrics such as number of publications, citations, and grants and are proportionally represented in the literature. No data indicating collaborative or citation/grant discrimination were observed, suggesting that the academic IR community is inclusive of its female constituents and equally respects their research contributions. Based on the statistically significant increases in female authorship observed in this 12-year study, this article reports encouraging trends for the future of women in interventional radiology. © 2018 SIR
  • Item type:Publication,
    Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Witteman, Holly O
    ;
    Hendricks, Michael
    ;
    Straus, Sharon
    ;
    Tannenbaum, Cara
    Background Across countries and disciplines, studies show male researchers receive more research funding than their female peers. Because most studies have been observational, it is unclear whether imbalances stem from evaluations of female research investigators or of their proposed research. In 2014, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research created a natural experiment by dividing investigator-initiated funding applications into two new grant programmes: one with and one without an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator. Methods We analysed application success among 23 918 grant applications from 7093 principal investigators in all investigator-initiated Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant programmes between 2011 and 2016. We used generalised estimating equations to account for multiple applications by the same applicant and compared differences in application success between male and female principal investigators under different review criteria. Findings Overall application success across competitions was 15·8%. After adjusting for age and research domain, the predicted probability of success in traditional programmes was 0·9 percentage points lower for female applicants than male applicants (95% CI 2·0 lower–0·2 higher; odds ratio 0·934, 95% CI 0·854–1·022). In the new programme, in which review focused on the proposed science, the gap remained 0·9 percentage points (3·2 lower–1·4 higher; 0·998, 0·794–1·229). In the new programme with an explicit review focus on the calibre of the principal investigator, the gap was 4·0 percentage points (6·7 lower–1·3 lower; 0·705, 0·519–0·960). Interpretation Gender gaps in grant funding are attributable to less favourable assessments of women as principal investigators, not of the quality of their proposed research. We discuss reasons less favourable assessments might occur and strategies to foster fair and rigorous peer review. Funding None.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada Open PDF 
    (CMAJ, 2018)
    Tamblyn, Robyn
    ;
    Girard, Nadyne
    ;
    Qian, Christina J.
    ;
    Hanley, James
    BACKGROUND: Peer review is used to determine what research is funded and published, yet little is known about its effectiveness, and it is suspected that there may be biases. We investigated the variability of peer review and factors influencing ratings of grant applications. METHODS: We evaluated all grant applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research between 2012 and 2014. The contribution of application, principal applicant and reviewer characteristics to overall application score was assessed after adjusting for the applicant’s scientific productivity. RESULTS: Among 11 624 applications, 66.2% of principal applicants were male and 64.1% were in a basic science domain. We found a significant nonlinear association between scientific productivity and final application score that differed by applicant gender and scientific domain, with higher scores associated with past funding success and h-index and lower scores associated with female applicants and those in the applied sciences. Significantly lower application scores were also associated with applicants who were older, evaluated by female reviewers only (v. male reviewers only, −0.05 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.08 to −0.02) or reviewers in scientific domains different from the applicant’s (−0.07 points, 95% CI −0.11 to −0.03). Significantly higher application scores were also associated with reviewer agreement in application score (0.23 points, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.26), the existence of reviewer conflicts (0.09 points, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.11), larger budget requests (0.01 points per $100 000, 95% CI 0.007 to 0.02), and resubmissions (0.15 points, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.17). In addition, reviewers with high expertise were more likely than those with less expertise to provide higher scores to applicants with higher past success rates (0.18 points, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.28). INTERPRETATION: There is evidence of bias in peer review of operating grants that is of sufficient magnitude to change application scores from fundable to nonfundable. This should be addressed by training and policy changes in research funding.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis Open PDF 
    (2019)
    Burns, Karen E. A.
    ;
    Straus, Sharon E.
    ;
    Liu, Kuan
    ;
    Rizvi, Leena
    ;
    Guyatt, Gordon
    Background: Although women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period. Methods and findings: We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People's Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0-2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process. Conclusions: Gender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content.