Persistent nepotism in peer-review
Purchase on Springer.com
$39.95 / €34.95 / £29.95*
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.
In a replication of the high-profile contribution by Wennerås and Wold on grant peer-review, we investigate new applications processed by the medical research council in Sweden. Introducing a normalisation method for ranking applications that takes into account the differences between committees, we also use a normalisation of bibliometric measures by field. Finally, we perform a regression analysis with interaction effects. Our results indicate that female principal investigators (PIs) receive a bonus of 10% on scores, in relation to their male colleagues. However, male and female PIs having a reviewer affiliation collect an even higher bonus, approximately 15%. Nepotism seems to be a persistent problem in the Swedish grant peer review system.
- Asmar, C. (1999), Is there a gendered agenda in academia? The research experience of female and male PhD graduates in Australian universities, Higher Education, 38(3): 255–273. CrossRef
- Black, M. M., Holden, E. W. (1998), The impact of gender on productivity and satisfaction among medical school psychologists, Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 5(1): 117–131. CrossRef
- Bornmann, L., Daniel, H. D. (2005), Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees’ decisions, Scientometrics, 63(2): 297–320. CrossRef
- Brouns, M. (2000), The gendered nature of assessment procedures on scientific research funding: the dutch case, Higher Education in Europe, 25: 193–199. CrossRef
- Cole, J. R., Zuckerman, H. (1987), Marriage, Motherhood and Research Performance in Science Scientific American, 256(2): 119.
- Gander, J. P. (1999), Faculty gender effects on academic research and teaching, Research in Higher Education, 40(2): 171–184. CrossRef
- Glänzel, W., Debackere, K., Thijs, B., Schubert, A. (2006), A concise review on the role of author self-citations in information science, bibliometrics and science policy, Scientometrics, 67(2): 263–277. CrossRef
- Kulis, S., Sicotte, D., Collins, S. (2002), More than a pipeline problem: Labor supply constraints and gender stratification across academic science disciplines, Research in Higher Education, 43(6): 657–691. CrossRef
- Kyvik, S., Teigen, M. (1996), Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity, Science Technology & Human Values, 21(1): 54–71. CrossRef
- Levin, S. G., Stephan, P. E. (1998), Gender differences in the rewards to publishing in academe: Science in the 1970s, Sex Roles, 38(11–12): 1049–1064. CrossRef
- Long, J. S. (1992), Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity, Social Forces, 71(1): 159–178. CrossRef
- Moed, H. F. (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer Verlag.
- Prpic, K. (2002), Gender and productivity differentials in science, Scientometrics, 55(1): 27–58. CrossRef
- Rossiter, M. W. (1993), The Matilda Effect in science, Social Studies of Science, 23: 325–341. CrossRef
- Sandström, U. & pal. (1997), “Does Peer Review Matter?” Peers on Peers. Allocations Policy and Review Procedures at TFR. Stockholm, Swedish Research Council for Engineering Sciences.
- van Raan, A. F. J. (2006), Statistical properties of bibliometric indicators: Research group indicator distributions and correlations, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3): 408–430. CrossRef
- Wennerås, C., Wold, A. (1997), Nepotism and sexism in peer-review, Nature, 387(6631): 341–343. CrossRef
- Wessely, S. (1998), Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet, 352(9124): 301–305. CrossRef
- Wold, A., Chrapkowska, C. (2004), Förbjuden frukt på kunskapens träd. Atlantis. [in Swedish]
- Xie, Y., Shauman, K. A. (1998), Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle, American Sociological Review, 63(6): 847–870. CrossRef
- Persistent nepotism in peer-review
Volume 74, Issue 2 , pp 175-189
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors