Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers’ Critiques

Magua, Wairimu; Zhu, Xiaojin; Anupama Bhattacharya; Amarette Filut; Aaron Potvien; Renee Leatherberry; You-Geon Lee; Madeline Jens; Dastagiri Malikireddy; Molly Carnes; and Anna Kaatz. 2017. “Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers’ Critiques.” Journal of Women’s Health. 26(4): 1-10.

Your Comments are Meaner Than Your Score’: Score calibration talk influences inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review

Pier, Elizabeth L.; Joshua Raclaw; Anna Kaatz, M. Brauer, Molly Carnes; Mitchell J. Nathan; and Cecilia E. Ford. 2017. “’Your Comments are Meaner Than Your Score’: Score calibration talk influences inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.” Research Evaluation. 26(1): 1-14.

Analysis of NIH R01 Application Critiques, Impact and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Kaatz, Anna; Y-G Lee; A. Potvien; Wairimu Magua; A. Filut; A. Bhattacharaya; R. Leatherberry; Xiaojin Zhu; and Molly Carnes. 2016. “Analysis of NIH R01 Application Critiques, Impact and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?” Academic Medicine. 91(8): 1080-1088.