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

View preprint
RT @eduardo_liveira: Peer reviewers are four times more likely to give a grant application an "excellent" or "outstanding" score rather tha…
reply repost on X like
"Author-nominated reviewers rate papers more favourably than do referees picked by journal editors" by @snsf_ch. #peerreviewbias https://t.co/imljmFi8b1 Preprint available
reply repost on X like
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
reply repost on X like
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
reply repost on X like
2475 days ago
https://t.co/nhYn2JDldt https://t.co/PEaL4gt9oe
reply repost on X like
https://t.co/IU4GRw6wSM
reply repost on X like
RT @SantiagoSchnell: Is this study truly measuring bias? https://t.co/YARo9hBqSD To be biased, the "friendly reviewer" will need to exercis…
reply repost on X like
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!
reply repost on X like
2476 days ago
This preprint was noted by Nature today... Potential bias in peer review for research funding: https://t.co/1Zwkg2w4aw
reply repost on X like
2476 days ago
RT @NicoleBarbaro: "Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers did, and male applicants received higher scores than female app…
reply repost on X like
2476 days ago
RT @NicoleBarbaro: "Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers did, and male applicants received higher scores than female app…
reply repost on X like
RT @NicoleBarbaro: "Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers did, and male applicants received higher scores than female app…
reply repost on X like
2476 days ago
RT @NicoleBarbaro: "Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers did, and male applicants received higher scores than female app…
reply repost on X like
"Male reviewers gave higher scores than female reviewers did, and male applicants received higher scores than female applicants" -- https://t.co/6x4JWdyD0p Preprint notes that after relevant confounding variables are controlled, effects decrease sig https://t.co/LyUyrL7VeJ https://t.co/xJwarS6e9M
reply repost on X like
Interesting, but that's not why I am posting this. The reason? Nature is discussing a paper that was published as a preprint in #PeerJ! Nice... Here's the PeerJ Paper. https://t.co/JZ6OMATeqp ‘Friendly’ reviewers rate grant applications more highly https://t.co/mcFZave4mX
reply repost on X like
A preprint of the paper is available at https://t.co/iLflO7Y8xT
reply repost on X like
RT @annasvrn: Applicant-suggested reviewers rate grant applications more favourably: @DalmeetS for @NatureNews on our study of the @snsf_c…
reply repost on X like
RT @annasvrn: Applicant-suggested reviewers rate grant applications more favourably: @DalmeetS for @NatureNews on our study of the @snsf_c…
reply repost on X like
2476 days ago
@suzan @mikofLohr Voeg daar ook nog aan toe: Recent op Twitter: Peer review niet echt betrouwbaar: https://t.co/cm3XdPEBd1 Recent in PeerJ: Peer review biased: https://t.co/vPicGJomsj
reply repost on X like
RT @annasvrn: Applicant-suggested reviewers rate grant applications more favourably: @DalmeetS for @NatureNews on our study of the @snsf_c…
reply repost on X like
2476 days ago
Potential bias in peer review of grant applications at the Swiss National Science Foundation [PeerJ Preprints]. From ⁦@annasvrn⁩ and ⁦@eggersnsf⁩ https://t.co/R5vnHO4GIO
reply repost on X like
2477 days ago
RT @annasvrn: Applicant-suggested reviewers rate grant applications more favourably: @DalmeetS for @NatureNews on our study of the @snsf_c…
reply repost on X like
2477 days ago
Applicant-suggested reviewers rate grant applications more favourably: @DalmeetS for @NatureNews on our study of the @snsf_ch peer review of research grant applications. Read the preprint here: https://t.co/HlaPmAGXRK @eggersnsf @rambujo @rachelhey3 @scigeist https://t.co/YPJR4WsSRm
reply repost on X like
RT @eggersnsf: Out in @PeerJPreprints: Analysis of 38250 peer review reports of 12294 @snsf_ch grant applications by @annasvrn, João Marti…
reply repost on X like
@MarkLautens @KirstyDuncanMP @cdavidnaylor Related: SNSF released an interesting analysis on PeerJ not long ago: https://t.co/roM4ELTZVx
reply repost on X like