Thread by @sesiegler

#peerreview

Diversity and fairness in peer review require non academic peer reviewers. @CSRpeerreview

Women, esp. minority women, report a higher threshold for establishing credibility amongst their peers per Dr. Byrnes. Dr. Byrnes commented that this is sad, and I totally agree.

Please fix this biased working group that is devoid of participants from industry, @CSRpeerreview. When you only obtain feedback from academia and the intramural program, you are introducing the very bias you are trying to address.

F: Female
URM: underrepresented minority
B/AA: Black/African American

These slides will be available after the meeting via the following URL: public.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Organ…

Point being made:

If you are only allowing NIH funded PIs to do peer review, you aren’t really broadening the pool of people to bring into the peer review process.

That’s a great point, and keep in mind that women and minorities are underfunded by @NIH.

There aren’t enough data for URMs and B/AAs. There are more data available for females versus males in @CSRpeerreview.

I once suggested this to @CSRpeerreview, but there’s no way to blind reviewers to applicants due to exclusive IP and biosketches. There’s no way for someone like me to hide my and/or my company’s identity. The only solution is double unblinding, @NIHDirector. @CSRpeerreview

That’s enough of that. It’s very frustrating to see so many mistakes being made. I will check the rest of the slides later this week.