NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores
NIH peer review: Criterion scores completely account for racial disparities in overall impact scores
复制标题
DOI：
10.1126/sciadv.aaz4868
复制
发表时间：
2020-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
13.6
通讯作者：
Lee, Carole J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Erosheva, Elena A.;Grant, Sheridan;Lee, Carole J.
先前的研究发现，资金差异是由申请的最终影响分数驱动的，而且黑人/白人资金差距只有一部分可以用文献计量学和选题来解释。利用美国国立卫生研究院2014 - 2016年理事会年度的R01申请，我们检查指定评审员给出的初步总体影响和标准分数，以评估影响分数中的种族差异是否可以用申请和申请人的特征来解释。我们假设，在将标准分数合并为总体影响分数的衡量过程中的差异使黑人申请人处于不利地位。通过使用多层次模型，并对包括职业阶段、性别和科学领域在内的关键变量进行匹配，我们发现几乎没有证据表明在将初步标准分数合并为初步总体影响分数的过程中出现种族差异。相反，初步标准分数完全解释了初步总体影响分数中的种族差异，但并不能解释所有的变异性。
Previous research has found that funding disparities are driven by applications' final impact scores and that only a portion of the black/white funding gap can be explained by bibliometrics and topic choice. Using National Institutes of Health R01 applications for council years 2014-2016, we examine assigned reviewers' preliminary overall impact and criterion scores to evaluate whether racial disparities in impact scores can be explained by application and applicant characteristics. We hypothesize that differences in commensuration-the process of combining criterion scores into overall impact scores-disadvantage black applicants. Using multilevel models and matching on key variables including career stage, gender, and area of science, we find little evidence for racial disparities emerging in the process of combining preliminary criterion scores into preliminary overall impact scores. Instead, preliminary criterion scores fully account for racial disparities-yet do not explain all of the variability-in preliminary overall impact scores.