Persistent nepotism in peer-review
2008 (English)In: Scientometrics, ISSN 0138-9130, E-ISSN 1588-2861, Vol. 74, no 2, 175-189 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
In a replication of the high-profile contribution by Wenneras and Wold on grant peer-review, we investigate new applications processed by the medical research council in Sweden. Introducing a normalisation method for ranking applications that takes into account the differences between committees, we also use a normalisation of bibliometric measures by field. Finally, we perform a regression analysis with interaction effects. Our results indicate that female principal investigators (PIs) receive a bonus of 10% on scores, in relation to their male colleagues. However, male and female PIs having a reviewer affiliation collect an even higher bonus, approximately 15%. Nepotism seems to be a persistent problem in the Swedish grant peer review system.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2008. Vol. 74, no 2, 175-189 p.
SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY, GENDER-DIFFERENCES, SEX-DIFFERENCES, SCIENCE
Social Sciences Interdisciplinary
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-71091DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3ISI: 000252808500001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-71091DiVA: diva2:486523
Jointly published by Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest and Springer, Dordrecht
QC 201202072012-02-072012-01-302012-02-07Bibliographically approved