{"id":833,"date":"2017-09-13T12:10:00","date_gmt":"2017-09-13T12:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/exploring-funding-and-grant-reviews-a-report-from-the-2017-peer-review-congress\/"},"modified":"2025-02-25T06:10:41","modified_gmt":"2025-02-25T06:10:41","slug":"exploring-funding-and-grant-reviews-a-report-from-the-2017-peer-review-congress","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/exploring-funding-and-grant-reviews-a-report-from-the-2017-peer-review-congress","title":{"rendered":"Exploring funding and grant reviews: A report from the 2017 Peer Review Congress"},"content":{"rendered":"

Day 2 of the Peer Review Congress: <\/strong>Often when we talk about peer review, we focus on the various forms of journal submissions that undergo close scrutiny. The second day of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication<\/a> included a session on the less discussed topic of funding or grant application reviews.\u00a0The session, moderated by Trish Groves (Director of academic outreach and advocacy, the BMJ<\/em>), included four presentations on various aspects of grant application.<\/p>\n

First up was Jo\u00e3o Martins (Swiss National Science Foundation) who presented the results of his attempt to examine peer reviewed grant applications submitted to the Swiss National Science Foundation for any potential geographic and\/or gender bias. Martins found that local grant reviewers (Swiss-based) were more likely to give lower scores (they were harsh reviewers) and that female applicants received lower scores. Martins advised grant reviewers to be cognizant of these potential biases. Here’s a\u00a0video recording of this session.<\/strong><\/p>\n