The optimal allocation strategy prioritizes funding to high-transmission settings in sub-Saharan Africa, but highlights a trade-off between reducing clinical malaria burden and reducing the global population at risk of malaria.

There is a systemic bias in research evaluation, i.e., disciplines with a higher proportion of women have lower evaluations and funding success for all researchers, regardless of gender.

A smartphone app incorporating clinical prediction models using patient-specific and location-specific data sources in a modular approach could predict viral-only etiology of diarrhea in children under five in Bangladesh and Mali.

Blinding the initial review of applications for Beckman Young Investigator awards reduces prestige bias, but has no impact on the success rates for different genders.

Pharmacometric evaluation of viral clearance rates based on frequent oropharyngeal sampling is a highly efficient and well-tolerated method of assessing and comparing SARS-CoV-2 antiviral therapeutics in vivo.

A more balanced distribution of NIH grant funding among investigators would strengthen the diversity of the research enterprise, increase the likelihood of scientific breakthroughs, and lead to a greater return on taxpayers' investments.

An analysis of the grades awarded to cell biology students at University College London suggests that exams may contribute more to the award gap than coursework in this subject.

White principal investigators applying to the National Science Foundation are consistently funded at higher rates than most non-white PIs.

In studies of gender disparities in academia, increased focus is required on within-group variability and between-group overlap of distributions when interpreting and reporting results.

Grant applications submitted to the NIH by African-American/Black PIs are less likely to be funded than applications from white PIs, and the NIH must find a solution that eliminates this racial disparity.