An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes

  1. Richard Nakamura
  2. Lee S Mann
  3. Mark D Lindner PhD
  4. Jeremy Braithwaite
  5. Mei-Ching Chen
  6. Adrian Vancea
  7. Noni Byrnes
  8. Valerie Durrant
  9. Bruce Reed  Is a corresponding author
  1. Retired, United States
  2. NIH/Center for Scientific Review, United States
  3. National Institutes of Health, United States
  4. Evaluact, Inc, United States

Abstract

Background: Blinding reviewers to applicant identity has been proposed to reduce bias in peer review.

Methods: This experimental test used 1200 NIH grant applications, 400 from Black investigators, 400 matched applications from White investigators, and 400 randomly selected applications from White investigators. Applications were reviewed by mail in standard and redacted formats.

Results: Redaction reduced, but did not eliminate, reviewers' ability to correctly guess features of identity. The primary, pre-registered analysis hypothesized a differential effect of redaction according to investigator race in the matched applications. A set of secondary analyses (not pre-registered) used the randomly selected applications from White scientists and tested the same interaction. Both analyses revealed similar effects: Standard format applications from White investigators scored better than those from Black investigators. Redaction cut the size of the difference by about half (e.g. from a Cohen's d of 0.20 to 0.10 in matched applications); redaction caused applications from White scientists to score worse but had no effect on scores for Black applications.

Conclusions: Grant-writing considerations and halo effects are discussed as competing explanations for this pattern. The findings support further evaluation of peer review models that diminish the influence of applicant identity.

Funding: Funding was provided by the NIH.

Data availability

All data analyzed for the findings presented in this manuscript are included in the supporting files

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Richard Nakamura

    Retired, Takoma Park, MD, United States
    Competing interests
    Richard Nakamura, now retired, was Director of the NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR) while the study was designed and implemented..
  2. Lee S Mann

    NIH/Center for Scientific Review, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    Lee S Mann, now retired, was employed by CSR..
  3. Mark D Lindner PhD

    Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    Mark D Lindner, is employed by NIH/CSR.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8646-2980
  4. Jeremy Braithwaite

    Evaluact, Inc, Playa Vista, CA, United States
    Competing interests
    Jeremy Braithwaite, was employed by the contract research organization that conducted the data collection and initial analysis..
  5. Mei-Ching Chen

    NIH/Center for Scientific Review, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    Mei-Ching Chen, MC is employed by NIH/CSR..
  6. Adrian Vancea

    NIH/Center for Scientific Review, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    Adrian Vancea, is employed by NIH/Center for Scientific Review..
  7. Noni Byrnes

    NIH/Center for Scientific Review, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    Noni Byrnes, is employed by NIH/Center for Scientific Review. She is the Director of CSR..
  8. Valerie Durrant

    NIH/Center for Scientific Review, Bethesda, United States
    Competing interests
    Valerie Durrant, is employed by NIH/CSR.
  9. Bruce Reed

    NIH/Center for Scientific Review, Bethesda, United States
    For correspondence
    bruce.reed@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    Bruce Reed, is employed by NIH, he is the Deputy Director of CSR.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1606-8646

Funding

National Institutes of Health (none)

  • Richard Nakamura

Employees of the NIH were involved in study design, in data analysis, data interpretation and manuscript writing. Data were collected, and major data analysis completed, by a contract research organization.

Ethics

Human subjects: All participants gave informed consent to participate in this study in accordance with a protocol that was approved on March 27, 2017 by the Social Solutions, Inc. IRB, (FWA 00008632), protocol #47.

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 4,746
    views
  • 576
    downloads
  • 23
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Richard Nakamura
  2. Lee S Mann
  3. Mark D Lindner PhD
  4. Jeremy Braithwaite
  5. Mei-Ching Chen
  6. Adrian Vancea
  7. Noni Byrnes
  8. Valerie Durrant
  9. Bruce Reed
(2021)
An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes
eLife 10:e71368.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71368

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.71368

Further reading

  1. Edited by Peter A Rodgers
    Collection

    The study of science itself is a growing field of research.

    1. Cell Biology
    Tomoharu Kanie, Beibei Liu ... Peter K Jackson
    Research Article

    Distal appendages are nine-fold symmetric blade-like structures attached to the distal end of the mother centriole. These structures are critical for formation of the primary cilium, by regulating at least four critical steps: ciliary vesicle recruitment, recruitment and initiation of intraflagellar transport (IFT), and removal of CP110. While specific proteins that localize to the distal appendages have been identified, how exactly each protein functions to achieve the multiple roles of the distal appendages is poorly understood. Here we comprehensively analyze known and newly discovered distal appendage proteins (CEP83, SCLT1, CEP164, TTBK2, FBF1, CEP89, KIZ, ANKRD26, PIDD1, LRRC45, NCS1, CEP15) for their precise localization, order of recruitment, and their roles in each step of cilia formation. Using CRISPR-Cas9 knockouts, we show that the order of the recruitment of the distal appendage proteins is highly interconnected and a more complex hierarchy. Our analysis highlights two protein modules, CEP83-SCLT1 and CEP164-TTBK2, as critical for structural assembly of distal appendages. Functional assays revealed that CEP89 selectively functions in RAB34+ ciliary vesicle recruitment, while deletion of the integral components, CEP83-SCLT1-CEP164-TTBK2, severely compromised all four steps of cilium formation. Collectively, our analyses provide a more comprehensive view of the organization and the function of the distal appendage, paving the way for molecular understanding of ciliary assembly.