Versions Compared

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

...

Why are you moving to double-anonymous reviews?

Fairness to proposers: STScI places a high value on the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. The goal is to give each reviewer an unbiased look at the to minimize potential sources of bias and enable reviewers to focus on the science case of a proposal. Several studies have shown that a reviewer's attitude toward a submission may be affected, either consciously or unconsciously, by the identity of the lead author or principal investigator (see reference papers).  We have noted that over the last 15 cycles, HST proposals led by women have had systematically and successively lower success rates than those lead by men (Reid 2014). While the results are complex and the exact cause is unknown, independent studies of our reviews suggest a double-anonymous process might help resolve this inequity, and may balance out other areas of potential bias including affiliation and would significantly reduce the potential for bias, whether by gender, affiliation or country of origin. Such a process may also level the playing field between new and established researchers.

...

It is not correct to consider the move to a double-anonymous process an experiment. It is one in a progression of changes that have been enacted over the years to improve the equity and integrity of the proposal review process. We continuously will continue to evaluate the review process, with attention to fairness and balance over several factors, some of which are programmatic (e.g., are there more disproportionately more extragalactic programs than galactic?), and others demographic. We then make changes accordingly to address these issues.

...