Is peer review biased? Female health researchers who applied for grants from Canada鈥檚 major health research funder were funded less often than male counterparts because of potential bias, and characteristics of peer reviewers can also affect the result, found a study in听CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal)听.
Applicants who had not been previously funded also received lower scores, making them less likely to be funded.
Between 2012听and 2014, 11听624听applications were submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) open operating grant competitions. Two-thirds (66%) of applicants were male and 69% were aged 40听years or older. Almost two-thirds of applications (64%) were in basic science, with the remainder from applied science (16.6% clinical, 8.1% health services and 11.3% in population health).
The study, by researchers at听成人VR视频, looking at reviewer characteristics, including gender, previous success rates with grants, experience, scientific domain, conflict of interest and more, found that these traits did introduce bias into peer review of grant applications. This bias resulted in lower scores that could place the application in the non-fundable range.
CIHR鈥檚 annual investment in health research is about听听a year as of 2018.
Previous studies have found inconsistent evidence of bias, but few studies have analyzed whether reviewer characteristics could potentially bias applications.
鈥淭his study confirmed many of the suspected biases in the peer review of operating grant applications and identified important characteristics of peer reviewers that must be considered in application assignment,鈥� writes Dr.听, Scientific Director, CIHR 鈥斕齀nstitute of Health Services and Policy Research, who is also a professor at 成人VR视频听and a senior scientist at the Research Institute of the 成人VR视频 Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec. 鈥淏y measuring and controlling for scientific excellence of the applicant, we were able to examine how applicant, application and reviewer characteristics may unduly influence the assessment of operating grant applications.鈥�
The researchers also found that reviewer expertise influenced the application rating, as reviewers with high expertise rated previously successful applicants higher than less experienced applicants.
鈥淲e found lower scores for applied science applications, gender inequities in application scores that favoured male applicants who had past funding success rates equivalent to female applicants, particularly in the applied sciences,鈥� write the authors. 鈥淐onflicts on the panel, male reviewers only, reviewers with all high expertise, and those whose own research was exclusively in the same scientific domain as the applicant鈥檚 conferred positive benefits in application rating.鈥�
They suggest that training of reviewers, policy change and monitoring may help address these biases.
鈥淭hese findings are important, as securing less funding slows career progression for women and reduces opportunities for publishing and other forms of collaboration, which are criteria for professional advancement,鈥� writes Rosemary Morgan, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, in a related commentary听听with coauthors. 鈥淭o understand why this occurs, we must recognize that gender bias within the grant review process is a manifestation of historical and systemic gender bias within academia.鈥�
Dr. Robyn Tamblyn, Scientific Director, CIHR 鈥� Institute of Health Services and Policy Research, who is also a professor at 成人VR视频 and a senior scientist at the Research Institute of the 成人VR视频 Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec.
听
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR).听
听is published April 23, 2018.
Commentary听
听