Exploring Bias in Scientific Peer Review: An ASCO Initiative

How to be an effective ally

Inclusivity in biomedical research provides many positive attributes, including increased productivity, higher creativity, and improved wellness for all. While marginalized individuals work tirelessly to achieve equity and inclusion, this task should not be left solely to those most affected by exclusionary tactics. These individuals and the organizations with whom they are affiliated would benefit from the support of an ally. An ally is defined as a person or organization that actively supports the rights of a marginalized group without being a member of it. Allies have a unique opportunity to play a pivotal role in promoting fairness, equity, and inclusion, and thus serve as positive change agents within an organizational setting. We summarize here the importance of being an effective and dynamic ally and offer guidance on how to achieve that goal.

Influence of participant and reviewer characteristics in application scores for a hematology research training program

The American Society of Hematology Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) is a clinical research training program with a competitive application process. The objectives were to compare application scores based on applicant and reviewer sex and underrepresented minority (URM) status. We included applications to CRTI from 2003 to 2019. The application scores were transformed into a scale from 0 to 100 (100 was the strongest). The factors considered were applicant and reviewer sex and URM status. We evaluated whether there was an interaction between the characteristics and time related to application scores. In total, 713 applicants and 2106 reviews were included. There was no significant difference in scores according to applicant sex. URM applicants had significantly worse scores than non-URM applicants (mean [standard error] 67.9 [1.56] vs 71.4 [0.63]; P = .0355). There were significant interactions between reviewer sex and time (P = .0030) and reviewer URM status and time (P = .0424); thus, results were stratified by time. For the 2 earlier time periods, male reviewers gave significantly worse scores than did female reviewers; this difference did not persist for the most recent time period. The URM reviewers did not give significantly different scores across time periods. URM applicants received significantly lower scores than non-URM applicants. The impact of reviewer sex and URM status changed over time. Although male reviewers gave lower scores in the early periods, this effect did not persist in the late period. Efforts are required to mitigate the impact of applicant URM status on application scores.