An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes

Research and mentorship in behavior analysis from a lens of cultural responsiveness and antiracism

Although scientific endeavors strive to be objective, they are the work of individuals whose unique perspectives and experiences influence their research and interpretations of the world and data. Much has been said and written lately about the need to embed cultural responsiveness in behavior analysis and the need to enhance diversity in the field. In fact, similar conversations are taking place in many areas of science. Despite the current buzz, many behavioral researchers may be left wondering what they can do or whether it is incumbent on them to act. For the field of behavior analysis to move toward adopting the values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and access, members of the scientific community must actively engage in behaviors that foster inclusive and safe learning environments for students, engage in collaborative work, and incorporate culturally responsive research and mentorship practices. This article will describe some current practices, showcase exemplars of culturally responsive research and mentorship, and provide resources for researchers and mentors.

Blinding reduces institutional prestige bias during initial review of applications for a young investigator award

Organizations that fund research are keen to ensure that their grant selection processes are fair and equitable for all applicants. In 2020, the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Foundation introduced blinding to the first stage of the process used to review applications for Beckman Young Investigator (BYI) awards: applicants were instructed to blind the technical proposal in their initial Letter of Intent by omitting their name, gender, gender-identifying pronouns, and institutional information. Here we examine the impact of this change by comparing the data on gender and institutional prestige of the applicants in the first four years of the new policy (BYI award years 2021-2024) with data on the last four years of the old policy (2017-2020). We find that under the new policy, the distribution of applicants invited to submit a full application shifted from those affiliated with institutions regarded as more prestigious to those outside of this group, and that this trend continued through to the final program awards. We did not find evidence of a shift in the distribution of applicants with respect to gender.

Role of cytosolic and endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ in pancreatic beta-cells: pros and cons

Pancreatic beta cells utilize Ca2+ to secrete insulin in response to glucose. The glucose-dependent increase in cytosolic Ca2+ concentration ([Ca2+]C) activates a series of insulin secretory machinery in pancreatic beta cells. Therefore, the amount of insulin secreted in response to glucose is determined in a [Ca2+]C-dependent manner, at least within a moderate range. However, the demand for insulin secretion may surpass the capability of beta cells. Abnormal elevation of [Ca2+]C levels beyond the beta-cell endurance capacity can damage them by inducing endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress and cell death programs such as apoptosis. Therefore, while Ca2+ is essential for the insulin secretory functions of beta cells, it could affect their survival at pathologically higher levels. Because an increase in beta-cell [Ca2+]C is inevitable under certain hazardous conditions, understanding the regulatory mechanism for [Ca2+]C is important. Therefore, this review discusses beta-cell function, survival, ER stress, and apoptosis associated with intracellular and ER Ca2+ homeostasis.

The Role of the National Institute of Mental Health in Promoting Diversity in the Psychiatric Research Workforce

The mission of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is to transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research, paving the way for prevention, recovery, and cure. This mission can only be realized if full participation in the research enterprise is open to all. Nevertheless, systemic racism and other barriers remain significant obstacles to achieving a diverse workforce. To address these barriers, NIMH must ensure a just and equitable funding process, support diversity-focused training opportunities, and encourage research into mental health disparities and other areas of interest to a diverse array of scientists.

Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Methods: Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Results: Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Conclusion: Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.

The Role of the National Institute of Mental Health in Promoting Diversity in the Psychiatric Research Workforce

The mission of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is to transform the understanding and treatment of mental illnesses through basic and clinical research, paving the way for prevention, recovery, and cure. This mission can only be realized if full participation in the research enterprise is open to all. Nevertheless, systemic racism and other barriers remain significant obstacles to achieving a diverse workforce. To address these barriers, NIMH must ensure a just and equitable funding process, support diversity-focused training opportunities, and encourage research into mental health disparities and other areas of interest to a diverse array of scientists.

Can Peer Review Be Kinder? Supportive Peer Review: A Re-Commitment to Kindness and a Call to Action

Peer review aims to select articles for publication and to improve articles before publication. We believe that this process can be infused by kindness without losing rigor. In 2014, the founding editorial team of the Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease (CJKHD) made an explicit commitment to treat authors as we would wish to be treated ourselves. This broader group of authors reaffirms this principle, for which we suggest the terminology “supportive review.”

Peer reviewers' dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences

Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences. Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process. These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics' area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution. In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs-varying in length and complexity. However, their interpretation of what was 'right' was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder's guidelines and priorities. As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers' views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes. The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process. We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this "invisible work" to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process.

Reflections on race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards

It has been a decade since "Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards" was published. Receiving the American Society for Cell Biology Public Service Award allows me to reflect on this research and its impact. In this essay, I share the story of how my research interests and professional networks provided the opportunity to do this important work. I also make the case for improved data and mentoring to address race and ethnic disparities in NIH funding.

Blinding peer review

Concealing the identity of the principal investigator only partially closes the success gap between white and African American or Black researchers in NIH grant applications.