Do interests affect grant application success? The role of organizational proximity

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.03255v1
• Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 22:02:54 GMT
• Title: Do interests affect grant application success? The role of organizational proximity
• Abstract summary: We investigate the effect of organizational proximity, defined as an applicant with the same affiliation as one of the panel members, on the probability of getting a grant. We find that the probability to get funded increases significantly for those that apply in a panel where there is a panelist from the institution where the applicant has agreed to use the grant. At the same time, the effect differs between disciplines and countries, and men profit more of it than women do.
• Score: 0.11421942894219898
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Bias in grant allocation is a critical issue, as the expectation is that grants are given to the best researchers, and not to applicants that are socially, organizationally, or topic-wise near-by the decision-makers. In this paper, we investigate the effect of organizational proximity, defined as an applicant with the same affiliation as one of the panel members (a near-by panelist), on the probability of getting a grant. This study is based on one of the most prominent grant schemes in Europe, with overall excellent scientists as panel members. Various aspects of this organizational proximity are analyzed: Who gains from it? Does it have a gender dimension? Is it bias, or can it be explained by performance differences? We do find that the probability to get funded increases significantly for those that apply in a panel where there is a panelist from the institution where the applicant has agreed to use the grant. At the same time, the effect differs between disciplines and countries, and men profit more of it than women do. Finally, depending on how one defines what counts as the best researchers, the near-by panelist effect can be interpreted as preferential attachment (quality links to quality) or as bias and particularism.

Related papers

• The Tilted Playing Field for Women in Science [14.85576018801986]
  We quantify prestige advantage as the relative likelihood that researchers at higher-ranked institutions have more collaborators.<n>We find that the association between prestige and scientific achievement differs systematically by gender.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-25T00:06:33Z)
• The Effect of Gender Diversity on Scientific Team Impact: A Team Roles Perspective [13.318002141663579]
  We use multivariable regression to examine the association between gender diversity in leadership and support roles and team impact.<n>The results show that the relationship between gender diversity and team impact follows an inverted U-shape for both leadership and support groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T12:49:21Z)
• BioPro: On Difference-Aware Gender Fairness for Vision-Language Models [50.40913324046528]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) inherit significant social biases from their training data, notably in gender representation.<n>We build upon recent advances in difference-aware fairness for text-only models to formalize the problem of difference-aware gender fairness for image captioning and text-to-image generation.<n>We propose BioPro, which aims to mitigate unwanted bias in neutral contexts while preserving valid distinctions in explicit ones.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-30T09:33:09Z)
• Theoretical Investigation on Inductive Bias of Isolation Forest [49.99478055888046]
  Isolation Forest (iForest) stands out as a widely-used unsupervised anomaly detector.<n>Despite its widespread adoption, a theoretical foundation explaining iForest's success remains unclear.<n>This paper focuses on the inductive bias of iForest, which theoretically elucidates under what circumstances and to what extent iForest works well.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-19T08:07:43Z)
• Gender Bias and Property Taxes [50.18156030818883]
  We analyze records of more than 100,000 property tax appeal hearings and more than 2.7 years of associated audio recordings. Female appellants fare systematically worse than male appellants in their hearings. Our results are consistent with the idea that gender biases are driven, at least in part, by unvoiced beliefs and perceptions on the part of ARB panelists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-17T07:14:23Z)
• The Root Shapes the Fruit: On the Persistence of Gender-Exclusive Harms in Aligned Language Models [58.130894823145205]
  We center transgender, nonbinary, and other gender-diverse identities to investigate how alignment procedures interact with pre-existing gender-diverse bias. Our findings reveal that DPO-aligned models are particularly sensitive to supervised finetuning. We conclude with recommendations tailored to DPO and broader alignment practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T06:50:50Z)
• My part is bigger than yours -- assessment within a group of peers [0.0]
  A project (e.g., writing a collaborative research paper) is often a group effort. At the end, each contributor identifies their contribution, often verbally. It leads to the question of what (percentage) share in the creation of the paper is due to individual authors. In this paper, we present simple models that allow aggregation of experts' views, linking the priority of his preference directly to the assessment made by other experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T22:54:51Z)
• Automating Food Drop: The Power of Two Choices for Dynamic and Fair Food Allocation [51.687404103375506]
  We partner with a non-profit organization in the state of Indiana that leads emphFood Drop, a program that is designed to redirect rejected truckloads of food away from landfills and into food banks. Our goal in this partnership is to completely automate Food Drop. In doing so, we need a matching algorithm for making real-time decisions that strikes a balance between ensuring fairness for the food banks that receive the food and optimizing efficiency for the truck drivers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T15:22:41Z)
• GotFunding: A grant recommendation system based on scientific articles [0.0]
  We present textscGotFunding (Grant recOmmendaTion based on past FUNDING), a recommendation system trained on NIH grant--publication records. Our results show that the ranking considers most important 1) the year difference between publication and grant grant, 2) the amount of information provided in the publication, and 3) the relevance of the publication to the grant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-21T14:45:34Z)
• Incentive-Theoretic Bayesian Inference for Collaborative Science [59.15962177829337]
  We study hypothesis testing when there is an agent with a private prior about an unknown parameter. We show how the principal can conduct statistical inference that leverages the information that is revealed by an agent's strategic behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-07T17:59:01Z)
• Causal Fairness for Outcome Control [68.12191782657437]
  We study a specific decision-making task called outcome control in which an automated system aims to optimize an outcome variable $Y$ while being fair and equitable. In this paper, we first analyze through causal lenses the notion of benefit, which captures how much a specific individual would benefit from a positive decision. We then note that the benefit itself may be influenced by the protected attribute, and propose causal tools which can be used to analyze this.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T09:31:18Z)
• Award rate inequities in biomedical research [55.850540873687386]
  The authors performed an analysis of 14,263 biomedical research proposals with proposed start dates between 2010-2022 from the University of Michigan Medical School. There is a clear relationship between race/ethnicity and rates of proposal award. Black/African American and Asian researchers appear disadvantaged across all submission categories relative to White researchers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-14T14:05:39Z)
• Cascaded Debiasing: Studying the Cumulative Effect of Multiple Fairness-Enhancing Interventions [48.98659895355356]
  This paper investigates the cumulative effect of multiple fairness enhancing interventions at different stages of the machine learning (ML) pipeline. Applying multiple interventions results in better fairness and lower utility than individual interventions on aggregate. On the downside, fairness-enhancing interventions can negatively impact different population groups, especially the privileged group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T09:20:58Z)
• Fairness Preferences, Actual and Hypothetical: A Study of Crowdworker Incentives [1.854931308524932]
  This paper outlines a research program and experimental designs for investigating these questions. The voting is hypothetical (not tied to an outcome) for half the group and actual (tied to the actual payment outcome) for the other half, so that we can understand the relation between a group's actual preferences and hypothetical (stated) preferences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-08T05:00:57Z)
• Intersectional Affirmative Action Policies for Top-k Candidates Selection [3.4961413413444817]
  We study the problem of selecting the top-k candidates from a pool of applicants, where each candidate is associated with a score indicating his/her aptitude. We consider a situation in which some groups of candidates experience historical and present disadvantage that makes their chances of being accepted much lower than other groups. We propose two algorithms to solve this problem, analyze them, and evaluate them experimentally using a dataset of university application scores and admissions to bachelor degrees in an OECD country.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-29T12:27:18Z)
• Quota-based debiasing can decrease representation of already underrepresented groups [5.1135133995376085]
  We show that quota-based debiasing based on a single attribute can worsen the representation of already underrepresented groups and decrease overall fairness of selection. Our results demonstrate the importance of including all relevant attributes in debiasing procedures and that more efforts need to be put into eliminating the root causes of inequalities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-06-13T14:26:42Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.