Positive bias for European men in peer reviewed applications for faculty position at Karolinska Institutet

Author:

Holst Sarah,Hägg SaraORCID

Abstract

Background: Sweden is viewed as an egalitarian country, still most of the professors are Swedish and only 25% are women. Research competence is evaluated using peer review, which is regarded as an objective measure in the meritocracy system. Here we update the investigation by Wold & Wennerås (1997) on women researcher’s success rate for obtaining a faculty position, by examining factors (gender, nationality, productivity, etc.) in applications for an Assistant Professorship in 2014 at Karolinska Institutet. Methods: Fifty-six applications, 26 Swedish and 21 women applicants, were scored both on merits and projects by six external reviewers. Additional variables, including grants and academic age, calculated as the number of years since PhD excluding parental or sick leave, were gathered. Productivity was assessed by calculating a composite bibliometric score based on six factors (citations, publications, first/last authorships, H-index, high impact publication). Results: Overall, academic age was negatively correlated with scores on merits, as assessed by peer review, although not reaching statistical significance. In men, associations between scores on merits and productivity (P-value=0.0004), as well as having received grants (P-value=0.009) were seen. No associations were found for women. Moreover, applicants with a background from the Middle East were un-proportionally found in the lowest quartile (Fisher exact test P-value=0.007). Conclusions: In summary, the gender inequality shown in peer review processes in Sweden 20 years ago still exists. Furthermore, a bias for ethnicity was found. In order to keep the best scientific competence in academia, more efforts are needed to avoid selection bias in assessments to enable equal evaluations of all researchers.

Funder

Karolinska Institutet

Publisher

F1000 Research Ltd

Subject

General Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics,General Immunology and Microbiology,General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine

Reference27 articles.

1. Peer review of scientific quality - a research overview;L Gemzöe,2010

2. Nepotism and sexism in peer-review.;C Wenneras;Nature.,1997

3. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.;C Moss-Racusin;Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.,2012

4. Gender Equality Index 2015 - Measuring gender equality in the European Union 2005–2012: Report,2015

5. Higher education in Sweden - 2015 status report,2015

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Gender Bias Impacts Top-Merited Candidates;Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics;2021-05-10

2. Women in European neurosurgery;Acta Neurochirurgica;2019-12-12

3. Implicit bias is strongest when assessing top candidates;2019-12-03

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3