• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

盲审可降低年轻研究员奖申请初审中的机构声望偏见。

Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award.

机构信息

Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation, Irvine, United States.

Health Research Alliance, Research Park, United States.

出版信息

Elife. 2024 Mar 25;13:e92339. doi: 10.7554/eLife.92339.

DOI:10.7554/eLife.92339
PMID:38525941
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10963027/
Abstract

Organizations that fund research are keen to ensure that their grant selection processes are fair and equitable for all applicants. In 2020, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation introduced blinding to the first stage of the process used to review applications for Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) awards: applicants were instructed to blind the technical proposal in their initial Letter of Intent by omitting their name, gender, gender-identifying pronouns, and institutional information. Here we examine the impact of this change by comparing the data on gender and institutional prestige of the applicants in the first four years of the new policy (BYI award years 2021-2024) with data on the last four years of the old policy (2017-2020). We find that under the new policy, the distribution of applicants invited to submit a full application shifted from those affiliated with institutions regarded as more prestigious to those outside of this group, and that this trend continued through to the final program awards. We did not find evidence of a shift in the distribution of applicants with respect to gender.

摘要

资助研究的机构热衷于确保其资助申请筛选过程对所有申请人都是公平和公正的。2020 年,阿诺德和梅布尔·贝克曼基金会(Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation)在审查贝克曼青年研究员(Beckman Young Investigator,简称 BYI)奖申请的过程中引入了盲法:申请人被要求在最初的意向书中隐藏技术提案,方法是省略姓名、性别、性别识别代词和机构信息。在这里,我们通过比较新政策的前四年(2021-2024 年,即 BYI 获奖年)的数据与旧政策的最后四年(2017-2020 年)的数据,来研究这一变化的影响。我们发现,在新政策下,受邀提交完整申请的申请人分布从那些与被认为更有声望的机构有关联的申请人,转向了这个群体之外的申请人,而且这种趋势一直持续到最终的项目奖项。我们没有发现申请人在性别方面分布的变化的证据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/90b01b93ef0b/elife-92339-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/4b2c19db48a4/elife-92339-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/74171d2cb449/elife-92339-fig1-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/74e5bca522c3/elife-92339-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/19d5f0d3ba80/elife-92339-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/98b2c0ae5a49/elife-92339-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/90b01b93ef0b/elife-92339-fig5.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/4b2c19db48a4/elife-92339-fig1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/74171d2cb449/elife-92339-fig1-figsupp1.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/74e5bca522c3/elife-92339-fig2.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/19d5f0d3ba80/elife-92339-fig3.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/98b2c0ae5a49/elife-92339-fig4.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/5136/10963027/90b01b93ef0b/elife-92339-fig5.jpg

相似文献

1
Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award.盲审可降低年轻研究员奖申请初审中的机构声望偏见。
Elife. 2024 Mar 25;13:e92339. doi: 10.7554/eLife.92339.
2
Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis.基于研究内容领域的加拿大卫生研究院资助和人员奖项资助率的性别差异:一项回顾性分析。
PLoS Med. 2019 Oct 15;16(10):e1002935. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002935. eCollection 2019 Oct.
3
Impact of research investment on scientific productivity of junior researchers.研究投入对初级研究人员科研生产力的影响。
Transl Behav Med. 2016 Dec;6(4):659-668. doi: 10.1007/s13142-015-0361-9.
4
Influence of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Foundation's Research Training Grant on postaward academic federal funding.社会学术急救医学基金会研究培训资助对获奖后联邦学术资助的影响。
Acad Emerg Med. 2022 Jul;29(7):874-878. doi: 10.1111/acem.14456. Epub 2022 Mar 10.
5
Institutional disparities in the distribution of the American Society of Clinical Oncology grants.美国临床肿瘤学会资助分配中的机构差异。
J Cancer Policy. 2023 Mar;35:100404. doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100404. Epub 2023 Jan 14.
6
Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports.同行评审中的性别及其他潜在偏见:对38250份外部同行评审报告的横断面分析
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 20;10(8):e035058. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035058.
7
Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers.机构资助奖励对早期职业研究者申请者和同行评审者的影响。
Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2021 Jun 27;5(5):e12555. doi: 10.1002/rth2.12555. eCollection 2021 Jul.
8
Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands.在荷兰,性别因素会影响个人获得研究资金的成功率。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Oct 6;112(40):12349-53. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510159112. Epub 2015 Sep 21.
9
Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis.同行评审的资助申请、奖励及金额方面的性别差异:一项系统综述与荟萃分析
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2023 May 3;8(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s41073-023-00127-3.
10
COVID-19 gender policy changes support female scientists and improve research quality.新冠疫情相关性别政策的改变支持了女性科学家,并提高了研究质量。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Feb 9;118(6). doi: 10.1073/pnas.2023476118.

本文引用的文献

1
Strategies for inclusive grantmaking.包容性资助策略。
Nat Med. 2022 Apr;28(4):614-616. doi: 10.1038/s41591-022-01757-8.
2
An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes.编辑申请人标识符对同行评审结果影响的实验测试。
Elife. 2021 Oct 19;10:e71368. doi: 10.7554/eLife.71368.
3
Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding.国立卫生研究院研究项目资助资金分配的不平等。
Elife. 2021 Sep 3;10:e71712. doi: 10.7554/eLife.71712.
4
Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals.在 NIH R01 资助提案初始评审的实验中,几乎没有种族或性别偏见。
Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Mar;3(3):257-264. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0517-y. Epub 2019 Jan 28.
5
Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review.单盲与双盲同行评议中的评审偏倚。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Nov 28;114(48):12708-12713. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1707323114. Epub 2017 Nov 14.
6
Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities.研究经费评估中的偏见对小型大学有着严重后果。
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 3;11(6):e0155876. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155876. eCollection 2016.
7
The chi-square test of independence.卡方独立性检验。
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23(2):143-9. doi: 10.11613/bm.2013.018.
8
Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.改进科研基金申请的同行评审过程:可靠性、有效性、偏差与普遍性。
Am Psychol. 2008 Apr;63(3):160-8. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160.
9
Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance.盲审同行评议对摘要录用的影响。
JAMA. 2006 Apr 12;295(14):1675-80. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.14.1675.