PUBBLICAZIONE/PUBLICATION

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

Browse

Settings

Geographical Area: search.filters.geographical.SwissViewpoints: search.filters.viewpoints.Peer Review System

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender gap in faculty promotion Open PDF 
    (Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2024-11-08)
    Czech, Agata
    ;
    Olarreaga, Marcelo
    ;
    Peila, Olivia
    ;
    Ghinetti, Paolo
    We examine the gender gap in faculty promotion at the University of Geneva. After building a new measure of research quality that has no gender bias (i.e. men and women have, on average, the same level of research quality after we control for disciplines), we find that conditional on research quality, discipline and place where the PhD was obtained, women are 11 percent less likely to get promoted. The gender gap is almost three times larger for promotion from assistant to associate professor, suggesting that the mechanism at play is stronger for junior faculty. The gender gap is explained by the fact that an equal increase in research quality leads to a smaller increase in women’s probability of promotion.
  • Item type:Publication,
    Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports Open PDF 
    (British Medical Journal Publishing Group Section: Epidemiology, 2020)
    Severin, Anna
    ;
    Martins, Joao
    ;
    Heyard, Rachel
    ;
    Delavy, François
    ;
    Jorstad, Anne
    Objectives To examine whether the gender of applicants and peer reviewers and other factors influence peer review of grant proposals submitted to a national funding agency. Setting Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF). Design Cross-sectional analysis of peer review reports submitted from 2009 to 2016 using linear mixed effects regression models adjusted for research topic, applicant’s age, nationality, affiliation and calendar period. Participants External peer reviewers. Primary outcome measure Overall score on a scale from 1 (worst) to 6 (best). Results Analyses included 38 250 reports on 12 294 grant applications from medicine, architecture, biology, chemistry, economics, engineering, geology, history, linguistics, mathematics, physics, psychology and sociology submitted by 26 829 unique peer reviewers. In univariable analysis, male applicants received more favourable evaluation scores than female applicants (+0.18 points; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.23), and male reviewers awarded higher scores than female reviewers (+0.11; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.15). Applicant-nominated reviewers awarded higher scores than reviewers nominated by the SNSF (+0.53; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.56), and reviewers from outside of Switzerland more favourable scores than reviewers affiliated with Swiss institutions (+0.53; 95% CI 0.49 to 0.56). In multivariable analysis, differences between male and female applicants were attenuated (+0.08; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.13) whereas results changed little for source of nomination and affiliation of reviewers. The gender difference increased after September 2011, when new evaluation forms were introduced (p=0.033 from test of interaction). Conclusions Peer review of grant applications at SNSF might be prone to biases stemming from different applicant and reviewer characteristics. The SNSF abandoned the nomination of peer reviewers by applicants. The new form introduced in 2011 may inadvertently have given more emphasis to the applicant’s track record. We encourage other funders to conduct similar studies, in order to improve the evidence base for rational and fair research funding.