Citation map · Study

SZodixStudyAcademic Library

Shelves Open access

Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated

Gender and other potential biases in peer review: cross-sectional analysis of 38 250 external peer review reports

12 references·10 citing·47 second hop

FromToDepth

this work references cited by second hop

References

1997Nepotism and sexism in peer-review1,346 cited
2019Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency570 cited
2007Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis336 cited
2016Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?155 cited
2018Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada151 cited
2006Differences in Review Quality and Recommendations for Publication Between Peer Reviewers Suggested by Authors or by Editors147 cited
2003A Multilevel Cross-Classified Modelling Approach to Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Effects of Assessor and Researcher Attributes on Assessor Ratings139 cited
2019Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis114 cited
1995What Makes a Good Scientist?: Determinants of Peer Evaluation among Biologists110 cited
2007Peer review for improving the quality of grant applications99 cited
2017Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review66 cited
2006Gatekeepers of science—Effects of external reviewers’ attributes on the assessments of fellowship applications44 cited

Cited by

2021

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

Current status and solutions for gender equity in anaesthesia research

48 cited

2021Gender gap in authorship within published orthodontic research. An observational study on evidence and time-trends over a decade25 cited

2022Gender differences in peer review of innovation24 cited

2021Why we shouldn’t blame women for gender disparity in academia: perspectives of women in zoology17 cited

2022Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to Kindness and a Call to Action12 cited

2021The imaginary carrot: no correlation between raising funds and research productivity in geosciences12 cited

2020Research on research funding: an imperative for science and society10 cited

2021Swiss funder draws lots to make grant decisions9 cited

2023Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany8 cited

2025Equitable Research Funding: Strategies, Challenges and the Role of Funding Agencies8 cited