Annual-Report-2024 - Flipbook - Page 83
Young Scientists in conversation
How to Create Bias-Free Review Procedures
for Fellowships and Research Grants
Workshop moderated by Council Member Pernilla WittungStafshede, Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Improving Applications
• Replacing conventional length CVs with a narrative CV
focused on an applicant’s scientific contributions, training of early researchers, collaborative experience and
clarity of communication may help evaluations consider the scientific ideas and abilities with less emphasis
on demographic factors.
• Adjust the order of evaluation such that biased information is revealed after the reviewers have formed an
opinion of the candidate’s research ideas and ability. For
example, remove affiliation on the CV, and use initial for
first name to not reveal the gender of the candidate.
• Dividing the application in two parts, where the first
part is a short (perhaps 1 page) summary that should
be anonymized so that the reviewers cannot figure out
the identity or affiliation of the applicant. This first part
can still contain key information about the applicant’s
merits in anonymized form.
• Introducing an anonymous selection process up to interview. Investigation regarding “accountability” as well as
“feasibility” could be done later, e.g., after interview.
• Research proposals that are succinct, omitting extensive background, literature analysis, and speculation on
broader impact of project. I.e., shorter proposal lengths.
• Effective first screening procedure using an anonymous
narrative CV and short 1–2-page pitches of the research
proposal.
• A two-step evaluation system that initially separates
the assessment of scientific merit from the candidate’s
personal and professional information. First step:
Reviewers assess scientific merit of short 1–2-page
proposal. After that, CV and personal information reviewed. Proposals scoring above a certain threshold
advance to second stage. The second step addresses
administrative, technical, and detailed elements of the
proposal. Here, all the project management details and
a more detailed description of the scientific project (3–4
pages) should be included.
• Ask for the results of the targets mentioned in previous
funded research to keep proposals more realistic.
81
