Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?
Top Cited Papers
- 1 August 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Academic Medicine
- Vol. 91 (8), 1080-1088
- https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000001272
Abstract
Purpose Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex. Method The authors analyzed 739 critiques—268 from 88 unfunded and 471 from 153 funded applications for grants awarded to 125 PIs (76 males, 49 females) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison between 2010 and 2014. The authors used seven word categories for text analysis: ability, achievement, agentic, negative evaluation, positive evaluation, research, and standout adjectives. The authors used regression models to compare priority and criteria scores, and results from text analysis for differences due to PI sex and whether the application was for a new (Type 1) or renewal (Type 2) R01. Results Approach scores predicted priority scores for all PIs’ applications (P < .001), but scores and critiques differed significantly for male and female PIs’ Type 2 applications. Reviewers assigned significantly worse priority, approach, and significance scores to female than male PIs’ Type 2 applications, despite using standout adjectives (e.g., “outstanding,” “excellent”) and making references to ability in more critiques (P < .05 for all comparisons). Conclusions The authors’ analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue to operate in the post-2009 NIH review format in ways that could lead reviewers to implicitly hold male and female applicants to different standards of evaluation, particularly for R01 renewals.Keywords
This publication has 52 references indexed in Scilit:
- Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male studentsProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2012
- Sex Differences in Application, Success, and Funding Rates for NIH Extramural ProgramsAcademic Medicine, 2011
- Do Studentsʼ and Authorsʼ Genders Affect Evaluations? A Linguistic Analysis of Medical Student Performance EvaluationsAcademic Medicine, 2011
- National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievementProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2009
- “I think it, therefore it’s true”: Effects of self-perceived objectivity on hiring discriminationOrganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2007
- A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job ApplicantsSex Roles, 2007
- Modelling skewed data with many zeros: A simple approach combining ordinary and logistic regressionEnvironmental and Ecological Statistics, 2005
- Male-female differences: A computer simulation.American Psychologist, 1996
- The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis.American Psychologist, 1993
- The impact of situational factors on personnel decisions concerning women: Varying the sex composition of the applicant poolOrganizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1980