1 Citation   Views   Downloads

Gender and other potential biases in peer review: Analysis of 38,250 external peer review reports

View preprint
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
23 days ago
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
24 days ago
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
RT @StefanieMuff: The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their pee…
The Swiss National Science Foundation @snsf_ch analyzed itself. Result: Unsurprisingly, there is gender bias in their peer-reviews https://t.co/tXEcLoho7M
30 days ago
Gender and other potential biases in peer review: Analysis of 38,250 external peer review reports https://t.co/LGG2qgIqTh https://t.co/vNvgXPEkxt
RT @eduardo_liveira: Peer reviewers are four times more likely to give a grant application an "excellent" or "outstanding" score rather tha…
"Author-nominated reviewers rate papers more favourably than do referees picked by journal editors" by @snsf_ch. #peerreviewbias https://t.co/imljmFi8b1 Preprint available
Peer reviewers are four times more likely to give a grant application an "excellent" or "outstanding" score rather than a "poor" or "good" one when they are chosen by the grant’s applicants. https://t.co/ABH2Tt1DMr https://t.co/0IZR7zJzPn
Potential bias in peer review at SNSF https://t.co/iBXaH5uebY via @PeerJPreprints applicants recommend referees for their applications, appraisals x4 more likely to be rated excellent / outstanding. hencey many funders only select 1 suggested reviewer from the proposed reviewers
91 days ago
https://t.co/nhYn2JDldt https://t.co/PEaL4gt9oe
https://t.co/IU4GRw6wSM
RT @SantiagoSchnell: Is this study truly measuring bias? https://t.co/YARo9hBqSD To be biased, the "friendly reviewer" will need to exercis…
Is this study truly measuring bias? https://t.co/YARo9hBqSD To be biased, the "friendly reviewer" will need to exercise prejudice in favor of one grant compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair. The meta-analysis cannot control this!
92 days ago
This preprint was noted by Nature today... Potential bias in peer review for research funding: https://t.co/1Zwkg2w4aw
92 days ago
RT @NicoleBarbaro: "Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers did, and male applicants received higher scores than female app…
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Additional Information

Competing Interests

AS, JM, FD, AJ are employed at the Swiss National Science Foundation. JM is seconded at the European Research Council. ME is the President of the National Research Council of the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Author Contributions

Anna Severin prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, investigation, Project Administration.

Joao Martins conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft, investigation, Project Administration.

François Delavy analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Anne Jorstad authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Matthias Egger conceived and designed the experiments, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Rachel Heyard analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, approved the final draft.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

Associated data is available at Zenodo.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.2592509

URL: http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2592509.

Code is available at URL: https://zambujo.github.io/snsf-peerreview/.

The published data is a slightly modified version to ensure that it is anonymized: the information on the date of the call has been deleted, the age variable has been regrouped in 5 year groups and two very special cases have been deleted.

Funding

The authors received no funding for this work.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies