Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis

By Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz, Hans-Dieter Daniel. J. Informetrics, 2007

315 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Narrative reviews of peer review research have concluded that there is negligible evidence of gender bias in the awarding of grants based on peer review. Here, we report the findings of a meta-analysis of 21 studies providing, to the contrary, evidence of robust gender differences in grant award procedures. Even though the estimates of the gender effect vary substantially from study to study, the model estimation shows that all in all, among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than women by about 7%.

Subfields: Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/33ad9dbfd3afbe5ef8151e736e0b91145424d9ab

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Discovering Gender Discrimination in Project Funding (2012, methodology): “interesting methodology is meta-analysis [3], [24]: a regression model is not built from data on individual applications, but rather from aggregated data collected from other studies.”
Women in Academic Science: Experimental Findings From Hiring Studies (2018, methodology): “A final example of subsequent analyses overturning earlier claims of bias is Bornmann et al.’s (2007) finding of gender bias in grant funding, based on a very large sample of individual grant applications. However, Marsh et al. (2009) reanalyzed these data using a multilevel measurement model and ar”
A multidisciplinary survey on discrimination analysis (2013, methodology): “Bornmann et al. (2007) collected data from 66 peer-reviewed procedures, and, using generalized regression models, concluded that there were overall robust gender differences, with men having greater odds of approval than women by about 7%, after controlling for discipline, funding agencies, and…”
Understanding current causes of women's underrepresentation in science (2011, methodology): “A follow-up study by Bornmann and his colleagues (42, 43) used a sophisticated multilevel approach to a metaanalysis, based on their comprehensive collection of studies of peer reviews for grants.”
The extent and drivers of gender imbalance in neuroscience reference lists (2020, background): “Northwestern University Law Review, 113(3):505–586.”
Men, women and STEM: Why the differences and what should be done? (2020, background): “• According to one major meta-analysis, men have a 7% better chance of being awarded research grants (Bornmann et al., 2007).”
Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. (2014, methodology): “The second data set was based on Bornmann et al. (2007) and Marsh et al. (2009).”