Paper detail

Gender-based Systematics in HST Proposal Selection

Proposal success rates are calculated for HST Cycles 11 through 21 as a function of the gender of the Principal Investigator (PI). In each cycle, proposals with male PIs have a higher success rate, with the disparity greatest for Cycles 12 and 18. The offsets are small enough that they might be ascribed to chance for any single cycle, but the consistent pattern suggests the presence of a systematic effect. Closer inspection of results from Cycles 19, 20 and 21 shows that the systematic difference does not appear to depend on the geographic origin of the proposal nor does it depend on the gender distribution on the review panels. Segregating proposals by the seniority of the PI, the success rates by gender for more recent graduates (Ph.d. since 2000) are more closely comparable. There is also a correlation between success by gender and the average seniority of the review panel for Cycles 19 and 20, but not Cycle 21. We discuss these results and some consequent changes to the proposal format and additions to the HST TAC orientation process.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.