33
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Federal funding for basic scientific research is the cornerstone of societal progress, economy, health and well-being. There is a direct relationship between financial investment in science and a nation’s scientific discoveries, making it a priority for governments to distribute public funding appropriately in support of the best science. However, research grant proposal success rate and funding level can be skewed toward certain groups of applicants, and such skew may be driven by systemic bias arising during grant proposal evaluation and scoring. Policies to best redress this problem are not well established. Here, we show that funding success and grant amounts for applications to Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Discovery Grant program (2011–2014) are consistently lower for applicants from small institutions. This pattern persists across applicant experience levels, is consistent among three criteria used to score grant proposals, and therefore is interpreted as representing systemic bias targeting applicants from small institutions. When current funding success rates are projected forward, forecasts reveal that future science funding at small schools in Canada will decline precipitously in the next decade, if skews are left uncorrected. We show that a recently-adopted pilot program to bolster success by lowering standards for select applicants from small institutions will not erase funding skew, nor will several other post-evaluation corrective measures. Rather, to support objective and robust review of grant applications, it is necessary for research councils to address evaluation skew directly, by adopting procedures such as blind review of research proposals and bibliometric assessment of performance. Such measures will be important in restoring confidence in the objectivity and fairness of science funding decisions. Likewise, small institutions can improve their research success by more strongly supporting productive researchers and developing competitive graduate programming opportunities.

          Related collections

          Most cited references12

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The scientific impact of nations.

          David King (2004)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws.

            The long-held but erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science has created an unsustainable hypercompetitive system that is discouraging even the most outstanding prospective students from entering our profession--and making it difficult for seasoned investigators to produce their best work. This is a recipe for long-term decline, and the problems cannot be solved with simplistic approaches. Instead, it is time to confront the dangers at hand and rethink some fundamental features of the US biomedical research ecosystem.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability.

              Peer review is a gatekeeper, the final arbiter of what is valued in academia, but it has been criticized in relation to traditional psychological research criteria of reliability, validity, generalizability, and potential biases. Despite a considerable literature, there is surprisingly little sound peer-review research examining these criteria or strategies for improving the process. This article summarizes the authors' research program with the Australian Research Council, which receives thousands of grant proposals from the social science, humanities, and science disciplines and reviews by assessors from all over the world. Using multilevel cross-classified models, the authors critically evaluated peer reviews of grant applications and potential biases associated with applicants, assessors, and their interaction (e.g., age, gender, university, academic rank, research team composition, nationality, experience). Peer reviews lacked reliability, but the only major systematic bias found involved the inflated, unreliable, and invalid ratings of assessors nominated by the applicants themselves. The authors propose a new approach, the reader system, which they evaluated with psychology and education grant proposals and found to be substantially more reliable and strategically advantageous than traditional peer reviews of grant applications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                3 June 2016
                2016
                : 11
                : 6
                : e0155876
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Integrative Conservation Biology, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, K9J 7B8, Canada
                [2 ]Department of Biology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B 5E1, Canada
                [3 ]École supérieure d’aménagement du territoire et de développement régional, Université Laval, Québec, QC, G1V 0 A6, Canada
                [4 ]Department of Biology, University of Regina, Regina, SK, S4S 0A2, Canada
                [5 ]Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, N9B 3P4, Canada
                [6 ]Department of Psychology, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2, Canada
                [7 ]Département de biologie, Université de Moncton, Moncton, NB, E1A 3E9, Canada
                Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, SPAIN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: DLM DM CL PRL HM MM M-AV. Performed the experiments: DLM. Analyzed the data: DLM. Wrote the paper: DLM DM CL PRL HM MM M-AV.

                Article
                PONE-D-16-11447
                10.1371/journal.pone.0155876
                4892638
                27258385
                fcfe8076-c246-4e5d-a995-12f7fe32dab7
                © 2016 Murray et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 18 March 2016
                : 5 May 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 5, Tables: 4, Pages: 19
                Funding
                Funded by: 0
                Award ID: 0
                Award Recipient :
                The authors have no support or funding to report.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Research Grants
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Institutional Funding of Science
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Education
                Schools
                Social Sciences
                Economics
                Labor Economics
                Employment
                Careers
                Science Policy
                Research Funding
                Government Funding of Science
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Educational Status
                Graduates
                Science Policy
                Custom metadata
                Data is available from Dryad with DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m33hv/1.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article