Persistent nepotism in peer-review
- PDF / 236,702 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 595 x 842 pts (A4) Page_size
- 53 Downloads / 195 Views
Scientometrics, Vol. 74, No. 2 (2008) 175–189 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3
Persistent nepotism in peer-review ULF SANDSTRÖM,a MARTIN HÄLLSTENb a
Department for Studies of Social Change and Culture, Linköping University, Lingköping (Sweden) b Department of Sociology & Swedish Institute for Social Research, Stockholm University, Stockholm (Sweden)
In a replication of the high-profile contribution by Wennerås 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.
Introduction Gender bias in the grant peer-review procedures of research councils is a crucial issue that generates serious discussion in core scientific journals [WESSELEY, 1998; BORNMANN & DANIEL, 2005]. Any type of bias would be detrimental towards strategies for scientific excellence. The proposed European Research Council is but one illustration of the importance of this debate. Since WENNERÅS & WOLD [1997]
Received February 12, 2007 Address for correspondence: ULF SANDSTRÖM Department for Studies of Social Change and Culture, Linköping University 58183 Lingköping, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] 0138–9130/US $ 20.00 Copyright © 2007 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest All rights reserved
U. SANDSTRÖM, M. HÄLLSTEN: Persistent nepotism in peer-review
published the first ever analysis of peer-review scores for postdoctoral fellowship applications no studies have been able to use the same variables, including reviewer affiliation. This study aims to trace the influence of gender and conflict-of-interest on scores, controlling for performance measures (bibliometrics), academic status (professor, assistant professor, and researcher), experience (years since dissertation), faculty discipline (medicine or not), university affiliation and committee assignment.
Research councils and peer review An essential principle of the classical model for research councils is that scientists, unrestricted by and unaffiliated with external factors, should govern research. In Sweden, active researchers constitute a majority on the council’s board, i.e. in all bodies where applications are assessed and evaluated and grants decided upon. Committee members are chosen through an electoral process involving all members of the research community in the university system. Peer review is used to guarantee the quality and diversity of basic research. A specific feature of the Swedish councils is that scientific committees are in command of the work. As a conse
Data Loading...
