Figures and data in An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes

Figures
Tables
Additional files

2 figures, 9 tables and 4 additional files

Figures

Figure 1

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Distributions of preliminary overall impact scores according to race of PI and format in which the applications were reviewed.

Boxes delineate the central 50% of scores those falling between the 25th and 75th percentiles (Interquartile Range, IQR). Whiskers extend 1.5X the IQR. Dots mark outliers. Horizontal lines within boxes indicate the median, and “x” marks the mean value. Lower scores are better.

Tables

Table 1

PI demographics and application characteristics by sample.

Match criteria	Black (n = 400)	White matched (n = 400)	White random (n = 400)
Gender
Male	232	233	276
Female	166	167	120
Unknown	2		4
Institution NIH mean (SD) awarded dollars in $millions	182.88 (172.02)	171.12 (159.85)	176.92 (157.13)
Type of application
Type 1 (New)	370	369	334
Type 2 (Renewal)	30	31	66
Revision or resubmission
A0 (original submission)	290	290	263
A1 (resubmission)	110	110	137
Early stage investigator
Yes	102	102	47
No	298	298	353
Investigator age mean (SD)	48.66 (9.31)	50.27 (10.20)	51.96 (9.96)
Behavioral/social science IRG
Yes	174	173	75
No	226	227	325
Degree held
MD	80	72	54
PhD	237	267	289
MD/PhD	37	33	40
Others	24	16	8
Unknown	22	12	9
Original preliminary overall impact scores: mean (SD)	4.35 (1.46)	4.34 (1.36)	3.94 (1.26)
% with multiple PIs	24	18	21

Table 2

Reviewer’s guesses of applicant race in relation to actual race by application format.

Reviewer guess of PI race	Standard format applications		Redacted format applications
	Black PIs	White PIs	Black PIs	White PIs
Black	683 (58%)	49 (2%)	336 (28%)	48 (2%)
White	432 (36%)	2234 (93%)	723 (61%)	2081 (87%)
Other	45 (4%)	66 (3%)	78 (7%)	172 (7%)
No guess	25 (2%)	41 (2%)	52 (4%)	90 (4%)

Table 3

Reviewer confidence regarding their guesses of investigator demographics.

Applicantcharacteristic	Black investigators		White matched investigators		White random investigators
Applicantcharacteristic	Standard reviews	Anonymized reviews	Standard reviews	Anonymized reviews	Standard reviews	Anonymized reviews
Race	3.2	2.1	3.2	2.2	3.4	2.2
Gender	4.3	2.3	4.4	2.3	4.5	2.3
Institution	4.2	3.2	4.3	3.3	4.4	3.3
Career stage	4.2	3.1	4.2	3.2	4.4	3.2

Note: 5-point scale, 1 = low confidence, 5 = high confidence.

Table 4

Rates of reviewer identification of name/research group in redacted applications.

PI race	Correct	Incorrect	No guess
Overall(3580)	21.6%(775)	6.1%(217)	72.3%(2588)
Black(1189)	18.9%(225)	5.6%(67)	75.4%(897)
White (matched sample)(1194)	19.4%(232)	7.0%(84)	73.5%(878)
White (random sample)(1197)	26.6%(318)	5.5%(66)	67.9%(813)

Table 5

Primary analysis.

Effects of race and application format on overall impact scores in matched White and Black application sets.

	Estimate	p-Value	95% Confidence interval (CI)
Fixed effects
Race	–0.17	0.01	(−0.31,–0.04)
Application format	–0.10	0.02	(−0.19,–0.02)
Race × application format	–0.12	0.17	(–0.29, 0.05)
Intercept	4.06	< 0.001	(3.99, 4.13)
Random effects
Application intercept	0.61	–	(0.51, 0.72)

Note: The reference category for race is the Black group. The reference category for application format is the redacted format.

Table 6

Simple contrasts of average preliminary impact scores for redacted vs. standard format applications by PI race.

Matched White application set.

Race	Anonymization condition
Race	Standard	Anonymized	Simple contrast (SE)	Effect size
Black	4.13	4.17	0.04 (0.06)	0.04
White matched	3.89	4.05	0.16* (0.06)	0.14
Simple contrast (SE)	–0.23* (0.08)	–0.12 (0.08)
Effect size for race	0.20	0.10

*

p <.05 (Bonferroni-adjusted).

Table 7

Parameter estimates and standard errors from nested models predicting overall impact scores in the Black and random White application sets.

	Model 1(n = 4764800 applications)		Model 2(n = 4728794 applications)		Model 3(n = 4728794 applications)		Model 4(n = 4315794 applications)
Fixed effects	Coef.	SE	Coef.	SE	Coef.	SE	Coef.	SE
DemographicsRace (White = 1)	–0.266^a	0.069	–0.132^c	0.065	–0.132^c	0.065	–0.124	0.068
Type 2 application			–0.492^a	0.101	–0.491^a	0.101	–0.484^a	0.104
A1 application			–0.420^a	0.069	–0.420^a	0.069	–0.415^a	0.072
Gender			–0.005	0.067	–0.005	0.067	0.013	0.069
Early-stage investigator			0.178^c	0.084	0.178^c	0.084	0.186^c	0.087
Low NIH institutional funding			0.618a	0.094	0.618a	0.094	0.612^a	0.097
Experimental covariates
Format (standard = 1)					–0.144^a	0.042	–0.022	0.041
Format × race					–0.186^b	0.083	–0.237^b	0.080
Perceptions
PI race guess Black							–0.155^b	0.069
PI gender guess female							–0.069	0.061
PI career stage guessEarly-stage investigator							0.091	0.063
Institutional funding guess ‘low’							0.447^a	0.134
Grantsmanship indicators
Grant 1							–0.519^a	0.027
Grant 2							–0.204^a	0.029
Random effects
Grant 1 slope							0.052
Institution slope			0.489		0.489		0.477
Application intercept	0.614		0.400		0.402		0.511
Residual	2.044		2.041		2.032		1.561

Note: Statistically significant parameter estimates are bolded; ^ap ≤ 0.001, ^bp ≤ 0.025, ^cp < 0.05.

Table 8

Simple contrasts of average preliminary impact scores for redacted vs. standard format applications by PI race.

Randomly selected White application set.

Race	Anonymization condition
Race	Standard	Anonymized	Difference (SE)	Effect size
Black	4.13	4.17	0.04 (0.06)	0.04
White random	3.76	4.01	0.25* (0.06)	0.21
Difference (SE)	–0.37* (0.08)	–0.16 (0.08)
Effect size for race	0.31	0.15

*

p < .05 (Bonferroni-adjusted).

Author response table 1

Distribution of change (redacted score – standard score) according to PI race.

	Min	1^st quarter	Median	Mean	3^rd quarter	Max
Black	–3.67	–0.67	0	0.04	1	3.33
White matched	–3	–0.67	0	0.16	1	3.33
White random	–3.83	–0.33	0.33	0.24	1	4.33

Additional files

Supplementary file 1 Additional methodological details. (A) Sample size calculations. (B) Number of matched white applications per matching criteria. (C) Redacted fields and their locations. (D) Differences between standard National Institutes of Health (NIH) review and this study.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71368/elife-71368-supp1-v2.docx
Download elife-71368-supp1-v2.docx
Supplementary file 2 Data collection instrument.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71368/elife-71368-supp2-v2.docx
Download elife-71368-supp2-v2.docx
Transparent reporting form: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71368/elife-71368-transrepform1-v2.docx
Download elife-71368-transrepform1-v2.docx
Source data 1 Data used in reported analyses.: https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/71368/elife-71368-supp3-v2.xlsx
Download elife-71368-supp3-v2.xlsx

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)

Article PDF

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

Mendeley

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

Richard K Nakamura
Lee S Mann
Mark D Lindner
Jeremy Braithwaite
Mei-Ching Chen
Adrian Vancea
Noni Byrnes
Valerie Durrant
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

Figures

Study background and timeline.

Distributions of preliminary overall impact scores according to race of PI and format in which the applications were reviewed.

Tables

PI demographics and application characteristics by sample.

Reviewer’s guesses of applicant race in relation to actual race by application format.

Reviewer confidence regarding their guesses of investigator demographics.

Rates of reviewer identification of name/research group in redacted applications.

Primary analysis.

Simple contrasts of average preliminary impact scores for redacted vs. standard format applications by PI race.

Parameter estimates and standard errors from nested models predicting overall impact scores in the Black and random White application sets.

Simple contrasts of average preliminary impact scores for redacted vs. standard format applications by PI race.

Distribution of change (redacted score – standard score) according to PI race.

Additional files

Supplementary file 1

Supplementary file 2

Transparent reporting form

Source data 1

Download links

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)

Be the first to read new articles from eLife

Share this article

Cite this article

Study background and timeline.

Distributions of preliminary overall impact scores according to race of PI and format in which the applications were reviewed.

PI demographics and application characteristics by sample.

Reviewer’s guesses of applicant race in relation to actual race by application format.

Reviewer confidence regarding their guesses of investigator demographics.

Rates of reviewer identification of name/research group in redacted applications.

Primary analysis.

Simple contrasts of average preliminary impact scores for redacted vs. standard format applications by PI race.

Parameter estimates and standard errors from nested models predicting overall impact scores in the Black and random White application sets.

Simple contrasts of average preliminary impact scores for redacted vs. standard format applications by PI race.

Distribution of change (redacted score – standard score) according to PI race.

Supplementary file 1

Supplementary file 2

Transparent reporting form

Source data 1

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)