New Results
Female grant applicants are equally successful when peer reviewers assess the science, but not when they assess the scientist
View ORCID ProfileHolly O. Witteman, View ORCID ProfileMichael Hendricks, Sharon Straus, Cara Tannenbaum
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/232868
Holly O. Witteman
1Associate Professor, Department of Family and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, 1050 avenue de la Médecine, Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada, G1V 0A6
PhDMichael Hendricks
2Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, 1205 av du Docteur-Penfield, McGill University, Montreal, Canada, H3A 1B1
PhDSharon Straus
3Professor, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Canada, M3B 2T9
MD FRCPC MSc HBScCara Tannenbaum
4Scientific Director, Institute for Gender and Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Canada, H3A 1W4
MD MScArticle usage
Posted December 22, 2017.
Female grant applicants are equally successful when peer reviewers assess the science, but not when they assess the scientist
Holly O. Witteman, Michael Hendricks, Sharon Straus, Cara Tannenbaum
bioRxiv 232868; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/232868
Subject Area
Subject Areas
- Biochemistry (12733)
- Bioengineering (9605)
- Bioinformatics (31117)
- Biophysics (16032)
- Cancer Biology (13104)
- Cell Biology (18733)
- Clinical Trials (138)
- Developmental Biology (10137)
- Ecology (15126)
- Epidemiology (2067)
- Evolutionary Biology (19332)
- Genetics (12836)
- Genomics (17706)
- Immunology (12838)
- Microbiology (30047)
- Molecular Biology (12533)
- Neuroscience (65459)
- Paleontology (484)
- Pathology (2028)
- Pharmacology and Toxicology (3500)
- Physiology (5422)
- Plant Biology (11233)
- Synthetic Biology (3101)
- Systems Biology (7743)
- Zoology (1748)