Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model
Gender differences in peer reviews of grant applications: A substantive-methodological synergy in support of the null hypothesis model
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.joi.2010.10.004
复制
发表时间：
2011-01-01
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Bond, Nigel W.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marsh, Herbert W.;Jayasinghe, Upali W.;Bond, Nigel W.
同行评议扮演着看门人的角色，是学术界价值的最终仲裁者，但由于潜在的偏见——尤其是与性别有关的偏见，同行评议受到了广泛的批评。在这个实质-方法学的协同中，我们展示了方法学和多层次统计方法来检验一个零假设模型，该模型与研究人员性别对资助提案同行评议的影响有关，该模型基于6233名外部评议者对来自社会科学、人文科学和科学学科的2331项提案的10023份评议。利用多层次交叉分类模型，我们发现支持假设研究者性别的零假设模型对求婚结果没有显著影响。此外，性别的这些非效应概括了评估人员的性别（与匹配假设相反）、学科、研究人员自己选择的评估人员与资助机构选择的评估人员的比较以及评估人员的国家。考虑到大量、多样化的样本、强大的统计分析和对普遍性的支持，这些结果——加上以前的研究结果——为资助提案同行评审中没有性别差异的零假设模型提供了强有力的支持。(C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd.版权所有。
Peer review serves a gatekeeper role, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but is widely criticized in terms of potential biases-particularly in relation to gender. In this substantive-methodological synergy, we demonstrate methodological and multilevel statistical approaches to testing a null hypothesis model in relation to the effect of researcher gender on peer reviews of grant proposals, based on 10,023 reviews by 6233 external assessors of 2331 proposals from social science, humanities, and science disciplines. Utilizing multilevel cross-classified models, we show that support for the null hypothesis model positing researcher gender has no significant effect on proposal outcomes. Furthermore, these non-effects of gender generalize over assessor gender (contrary to a matching hypothesis), discipline, assessors chosen by the researchers themselves compared to those chosen by the funding agency, and country of the assessor. Given the large, diverse sample, the powerful statistical analyses, and support for generalizability, these results - coupled with findings from previous research - offer strong support for the null hypothesis model of no gender differences in peer reviews of grant proposals. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.