Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Open AccessOriginal Article

Does Gender Matter in Grant Peer Review?

An Empirical Investigation Using the Example of the Austrian Science Fund

Published Online:February 28, 2015https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000103

References

  • Bauer, D. J. (2009). A note on comparing the estimates of models for cluster-correlated or longitudinal data with binary or ordinal outcomes. Psychometrika, 74, 97–105. doi: 10.1007/S11336-008-9080-1 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45, 199–245. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bornmann, L. , Daniel, H.-D. (2007a). Reliability, fairness and predictive validity of committee peer review – evaluation of the selection of post-graduate fellowship holders by the Boehringer Ingelheim Fonds. B.I.F. Futura, 19, 7–19. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Bornmann, L. , Daniel, H.-D. (2007b). Gatekeepers of science – effects of external reviewers’ attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 83–91. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2006.09.005 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bornmann, L. , Mutz, R. , Daniel, H.-D. (2007). Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226–238. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bornmann, L. , Mutz, R. , Daniel, H.-D. (2008). How to detect indications of potential sources of bias in peer review: A generalized latent variable modeling approach exemplified by a gender study. Journal of Informetrics, 2, 280–287. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bornmann, L. , Mutz, R. , Hug, S. E. , Daniel, H. D. (2011). A meta-analysis of studies reporting correlations between the h index and 37 different h index variants. Journal of Informetrics, 5, 346–359. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2011.01.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ceci, S. J. , Williams, W. M. (2011). Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3157–3167. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1014871108 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Fischer, C. , Reckling, F. (2010). Factors influencing approval probability in FWF decision-making procedures. Vienna, Austria: Fonds zur Förderung der wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FWF). First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hox, J. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. doi: 10.1037/0003-066x.60.6.581 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Jayasinghe, U. W. , Marsh, H. W. , Bond, N. (2003). A multilevel cross-classified modelling approach to peer review of grant proposals: The effects of assessor and researcher attributes on assessor ratings. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (Statistics in Society), 166, 279–300. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kostoff, R. N. (1995). Federal, research impact assessment – axioms, approaches, applications. Scientometrics, 34, 163–206. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Littell, R. C. , Milliken, G. A. , Stroup, W. W. , Wolfinger, R. D. , Schabenberger, O. (2006). SAS for mixed models (2nd ed.). Cary, NC: SAS Institute. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Maas, C. J. M. , Hox, J. J. (2004). Robustness issues in multilevel regression analysis. Statistica Neerlandica, 58, 127–137. doi: 10.1046/j.0039-0402.2003.00252.x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H. , Bornmann, L. (2009). Do women have less success in peer review? Nature, 459, 602. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H. W. , Bornmann, L. , Mutz, R. , Daniel, H. D. , O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peer reviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevel approaches. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326. doi: 10.3102/0034654309334143 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Martinson, B. C. , Anderson, M. S. , Crain, A. L. , de Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 51–66. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marwell, G. (1963). Visibility in small groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 61, 311–325. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McGuire, W. J. , McGuire, C. V. , Winton, W. (1979). Effects of household sex composition on the salience of one’s gender in the spontaneous self-concept. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15, 77–90. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(79)90020-9 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Moineddin, R. , Matheson, F. I. , Glazier, R. H. (2007). A simulation study of sample size for multilevel logistic regression models. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-34 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Moreland, R. L. , Levine, J. M. (2003). Group composition: Explaining similarities and differences among group members. In M. A. Hogg, J. Cooper, (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 367–380). London, UK: Sage. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Rudman, L. A. , Glick, P. (2008). The social psychology of gender. London, UK: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Sun, S. Y. , Pan, W. , Wang, L. L. (2011). Rethinking observed power concept, practice, and implications. Methodology-European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 7, 81–87. doi: 10.1027/1614-2241/A000025 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Thorngate, W. , Dawes, R. M. , Foddy, M. (2009). Judging merit. New York, NY: Psychology Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Voci, A. , Hewstone, M. , Crisp, R. J. , Rubin, M. (2008). Majority, minority, and parity: Effects of gender and group size on perceived group variability. Social Psychology Quarterly, 71, 114–142. doi: 10.1111/1467-985X.00278 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ward, J. E. , Donnelly, N. (1998). Is there gender bias in research fellowships awarded by the NHMRC7? The Medical Journal of Australia, 169, 21623–21624. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wellcome Trust .(1997). Women and peer review. An audit of the Wellcome Trust’s decision-making on grants. London, UK: The Wellcome Trust. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wennerås, C. , Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature, 387, 341–343. doi: 10.1038/387341a0 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ziman, J. (2000). Real science. What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar