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.
Productivity Measure Gender Bias Impact Score Postdoctoral Fellowship Swedish Research Council
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouns, M. (2000), The gendered nature of assessment procedures on scientific research funding: the dutch case, Higher Education in Europe, 25: 193–199.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kyvik, S., Teigen, M. (1996), Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity, Science Technology & Human Values, 21(1): 54–71.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Long, J. S. (1992), Measures of sex differences in scientific productivity, Social Forces, 71(1): 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moed, H. F. (2005), Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation. Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Prpic, K. (2002), Gender and productivity differentials in science, Scientometrics, 55(1): 27–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, M. W. (1993), The Matilda Effect in science, Social Studies of Science, 23: 325–341.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerås, C., Wold, A. (1997), Nepotism and sexism in peer-review, Nature, 387(6631): 341–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wessely, S. (1998), Peer review of grant applications: what do we know? Lancet, 352(9124): 301–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wold, A., Chrapkowska, C. (2004), Förbjuden frukt på kunskapens träd. Atlantis. [in Swedish]Google Scholar
Xie, Y., Shauman, K. A. (1998), Sex differences in research productivity: New evidence about an old puzzle, American Sociological Review, 63(6): 847–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar