Bornmann, L (Bornmann, Lutz); Mutz, R (Mutz, Ruediger); Daniel, HD (Daniel, Hans-Dieter) Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 1 (3): 226-238 JUL 2007

[Eugene Garfield]

E-mail Address: bommann at gess.ethz.ch

Author(s): Bornmann, L (Bornmann, Lutz); Mutz, R (Mutz, Ruediger); Daniel, 
HD (Daniel, Hans-Dieter) 

Title: Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis 

Source: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS, 1 (3): 226-238 JUL 2007 

Language: English 

Document Type: Article 

Author Keywords: meta-analysis; grant peer review; gender bias; gender 
effect; gender differences 

Keywords Plus: SCIENCE; WOMEN 

Abstract: Narrative reviews of peer review research have concluded that 
there is negligible evidence of gender bias in the awarding of grants 
based on peer review. Here, we report the findings of a meta-analysis of 
21 studies providing, to the contrary, evidence of robust gender 
differences in grant award procedures. Even though the estimates of the 
gender effect vary substantially from study to study, the model estimation 
shows that all in all, among grant applicants men have statistically 
significant greater odds of receiving grants than women by about 7%. (c) 
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 

Addresses: ETH, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland; Univ Zurich, Evaluat Off, CH-
8006 Zurich, Switzerland 

Reprint Address: Bornmann, L, ETH, Zaehringerstr 24, CH-8092 Zurich, 
Switzerland. 
 
Cited Reference Count: 32 

Times Cited: 1 
Publisher: ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV 

Publisher Address: PO BOX 211, 1000 AE AMSTERDAM, NETHERLANDS 

ISSN: 1751-1577 

*NAT SCI FDN
GEND DIFF CAR AC SCI : 2003 

*STATACORP
STAT STAT SOFTW REL : 2005 

ACKERS L
PARTICIPATION WOMEN : 2000 

BIAGIOLI M
EMERGENCES 12 : 11 2002 

BORNMANN L
Selection of research fellowship recipients by committee peer review. 
Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of Board of Trustees' 
decisions 
SCIENTOMETRICS 63 : 297 DOI 10.1007/s11192-005-0214-2 2005 

CARLIN BP
BAYES EMPIRICAL BAYE : 2000 

COLE S
MAKING SCI NATURE SO : 1992 

COX D
REPORT OF THE AD-HOC-COMMITTEE-ON-DOUBLE-BLIND-REFEREEING 
STATISTICAL SCIENCE 8 : 310 1993 

DANIEL HD
GUARDIANS SCI FAIRNE : 1993 

DEMICHELI V
COCHRANE LIB : 2004 

EAGLY AH
REVIEWING SCI WORKS : 2005
 
GLASS GV
EDUC RES 5 : 3 1976 

GREENWALD AG
CONSEQUENCES OF PREJUDICE AGAINST NULL HYPOTHESIS
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN 82 : 1 1975 

HANDELSMAN J
More women in science 
SCIENCE 309 : 1190 2005 

HORROBIN DF
PEER-REVIEW - A PHILOSOPHICALLY FAULTY CONCEPT WHICH IS PROVING DISASTROUS 
FOR SCIENCE 
BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES 5 : 217 1982 

HULL DL
PARTICULARISM IN SCIENCE + SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS AND THEIR VALIDITY 
CRITICISM-A QUARTERLY FOR LITERATURE AND THE ARTS 32 : 343 1990 

MARUSIC A
EUROPEAN SCI EDITING 31 : 112 2005 

MATT GE
What meta-analyses have and have not taught us about psychotherapy 
effects: A review and future directions 
CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW 17 : 1 1997 

MERTON RK
SOCIOLOGY SCI THEORE : 1973 

MERVIS J
High-risk research - Six women among 13 NIH 'Pioneers' 
SCIENCE 309 : 2149 2005 

MERVIS J
National Institutes of Health - Mate sweep of new award raises questions 
of bias 
SCIENCE 306 : 595 2004 

RABEHESKETH S
GLLAMM MANUAL : 2004 

SHATZ D
PEER REV CRITICAL IN : 2002 

SKRONDAL A
GENERALIZED LATENT V : 2004 

TIGHT M
QUALITY HIGHER ED 9 : 295 2003 

VALIAN V
WHY SO SLOW ADVANCEM : 1999 

WENNERAS C
A chair of one's own - The upper reaches of academe remain stubbornly 
inaccessible to women. 
NATURE 408 : 647 2000 

WENNERAS C
Nepotism and sexism in peer-review 
NATURE 387 : 341 1997 

WHITE HD
P 10 INT C INT SOC S 2 : 442 2005 

WOOD FQ
PEER REV HLTH SCI : 14 2003 

ZIMA J
REAL SCI WHAT IT IS : 2000 

ZIMAN J
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE ESS : 1968