Persistent Nepotism in Peer-Review
2008 (English)In: Scientometrics, Vol. 74, no 2, 175-189 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
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.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2008. Vol. 74, no 2, 175-189 p.
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-12786DOI: doi:10.1007/s11192-008-0211-3ISI: 000252808500001OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-12786DiVA: diva2:179306