Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Persistent nepotism in peer-review

  • Selected Papers Presented at the 9th International Conference on Science and Technology Indicators
  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 17 October 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

References

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brouns, M. (2000), The gendered nature of assessment procedures on scientific research funding: the dutch case, Higher Education in Europe, 25: 193–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, J. R., Zuckerman, H. (1987), Marriage, Motherhood and Research Performance in Science Scientific American, 256(2): 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gander, J. P. (1999), Faculty gender effects on academic research and teaching, Research in Higher Education, 40(2): 171–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyvik, S., Teigen, M. (1996), Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity, Science Technology & Human Values, 21(1): 54–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S. (1992), Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity, Social Forces, 71(1): 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, M. W. (1993), The Matilda Effect in science, Social Studies of Science, 23: 325–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennerås, C., Wold, A. (1997), Nepotism and sexism in peer-review, Nature, 387(6631): 341–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wessely, S. (1998), Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet, 352(9124): 301–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Studies of Social Change and Culture, Linköping University, 58183, Lingköping, Sweden

    Ulf Sandström

  2. Department of Sociology & Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

    Martin Hällsten

Authors
  1. Ulf Sandström
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Hällsten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulf Sandström.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sandström, U., Hällsten, M. Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics 74, 175–189 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation