Dataset Information

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

ABSTRACT: Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex.The authors analyzed 739 critiques-268 from 88 unfunded and 471 from 153 funded applications for grants awarded to 125 PIs (76 males, 49 females) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. The authors used seven word categories for text analysis: ability, achievement, agentic, negative evaluation, positive evaluation, research, and standout adjectives. The authors used regression models to compare priority and criteria scores, and results from text analysis for differences due to PI sex and whether the application was for a new (Type 1) or renewal (Type 2) R01.Approach scores predicted priority scores for all PIs' applications (P < .001), but scores and critiques differed significantly for male and female PIs' Type 2 applications. Reviewers assigned significantly worse priority, approach, and significance scores to female than male PIs' Type 2 applications, despite using standout adjectives (e.g., "outstanding," "excellent") and making references to ability in more critiques (P < .05 for all comparisons).The authors' analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue to operate in the post-2009 NIH review format in ways that could lead reviewers to implicitly hold male and female applicants to different standards of evaluation, particularly for R01 renewals.

SUBMITTER: Kaatz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4965296 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Kaatz Anna A Lee You-Geon YG Potvien Aaron A Magua Wairimu W Filut Amarette A Bhattacharya Anupama A Leatherberry Renee R Zhu Xiaojin X Carnes Molly M

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20160801 8

<h4>Purpose</h4>Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health (NIH) peer review, particularly for renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex.<h4>Method</h4>The authors analyzed 739 critiques-268 from 88 unfunded and 471 from 153 funded applications for grants awarded to 125 PIs (76 males, 49 fem ...[more]

PMID: 27276003

Similar Datasets

Project description:The main aim of this opinion review is to comment on the recent article published by Garg et al in the World Journal of Gastroenterology 2023; 29: 4593-4603. The authors in the published article developed a new scoring system, Garg incontinence scores (GIS), for fecal incontinence (FI). FI is a chronic debilitating disease that has a severe negative impact on the quality of life of the patients. Rome IV criteria define FI as multiple episodes of solid or liquid stool passed into the clothes at least twice a month. The associated social stigmatization often leads to significant under-reporting of the condition, which further impairs management. An important point is that the complexity and vagueness of the disease make it difficult for the patients to properly define and report the magnitude of the problem to their physicians. Due to this, the management becomes even more difficult. This issue is resolved up to a considerable extent by a scoring questionnaire. There were several scoring systems in use for the last three decades. The prominent of them were the Cleveland Clinic scoring system or the Wexner scoring system, St. Marks Hospital or Vaizey's scores, and the FI severity index. However, there were several shortcomings in these scoring systems. In the opinion review, we tried to analyze the strength of GIS and compare it to the existing scoring systems. The main pitfalls in the existing scoring systems were that most of them gave equal weightage to different types of FI (solid, liquid, flatus, etc.), were not comprehensive, and took only the surgeon's perception of FI into view. In GIS, almost all shortcomings of previous scoring systems had been addressed: different weights were assigned to different types of FI by a robust statistical methodology; the scoring system was made comprehensive by including all types of FI that were previously omitted (urge, stress and mucus FI) and gave priority to patients' rather than the physicians' perceptions while developing the scoring system. Due to this, GIS indeed looked like a paradigm shift in the evaluation of FI. However, it is too early to conclude this, as GIS needs to be validated for accuracy and simplicity in future studies.

Dataset Information

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Publications

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets