scholarly journals The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayaka Sato ◽  
Pascal Mark Gygax ◽  
Julian Randall ◽  
Marianne Schmid Mast

Abstract The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.

2010 ◽  
pp. 1535-1551
Author(s):  
Salah Eldin Adam Hamza

This article studies the way tacit knowledge is dealt with in a high turnover business environment through a qualitative research approach in an engineering organization with respect to organizational culture and values and the effect in competitive stance. The study found peer review process and managerial/supervisory style to be effective in enabling new employees in a short time with knowledge critical for them to do a successful job, core values, and open-door policy to be necessary factors in forming a fertile environment for a quick tacit knowledge harvesting. The study also showed that a good competitive stance and customer satisfaction can be achieved and maintained through implementation of a rigorous peer review process. The study revealed noneffective utilization of knowledge management (KM) technical resources. The study directs future research towards evaluating possible objectives for utilization of KM technological resources, timeline for effective codification of tacit knowledge, and responsibilities for handling resources.


2001 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 605-612
Author(s):  
Mary A. Marchant

AbstractThis article seeks to demystify the competitive grant recommendation process of scientific peer review panels. The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRICGP) administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture-Cooperative State Research, Extension, and Education Service (USDA-CSREES) serves as the focus of this article. This article provides a brief background on the NRICGP and discusses the application process, the scientific peer review process, guidelines for grant writing, and ways to interpret reviewer comments if a proposal is not funded. The essentials of good grant writing discussed in this article are transferable to other USDA competitive grant programs.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cassandra Lane Ettinger ◽  
Madhumala K. Sadanandappa ◽  
Kivanc Görgülü ◽  
Karen Coghlan ◽  
Kenneth K. Hallenbeck ◽  
...  

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors or consider whether to preprint their future research.


Author(s):  
Salah Eldin Adam Hamza

This article studies the way tacit knowledge is dealt with in a high turnover business environment through a qualitative research approach in an engineering organization with respect to organizational culture and values and the effect in competitive stance. The study found peer review process and managerial/supervisory style to be effective in enabling new employees in a short time with knowledge critical for them to do a successful job, core values, and open-door policy to be necessary factors in forming a fertile environment for a quick tacit knowledge harvesting. The study also showed that a good competitive stance and customer satisfaction can be achieved and maintained through implementation of a rigorous peer review process. The study revealed noneffective utilization of knowledge management (KM) technical resources. The study directs future research towards evaluating possible objectives for utilization of KM technological resources, timeline for effective codification of tacit knowledge, and responsibilities for handling resources.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenya Malcolm ◽  
Allison Groenendyk ◽  
Mary Cwik ◽  
Alisa Beyer

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cody Fullerton

For years, the gold-standard in academic publishing has been the peer-review process, and for the most part, peer-review remains a safeguard to authors publishing intentionally biased, misleading, and inaccurate information. Its purpose is to hold researchers accountable to the publishing standards of that field, including proper methodology, accurate literature reviews, etc. This presentation will establish the core tenants of peer-review, discuss if certain types of publications should be able to qualify as such, offer possible solutions, and discuss how this affects a librarian's reference interactions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document