Abstract:Abstract Background Differential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women’s lesser representation in the sciences. This study’s objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender differences in grant award acceptance rates and reapplication award acceptance rates (potential bias in peer review outcomes) and other grant outcomes. Methods The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232153) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. We searched Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and Web of Science for the timeframe 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2020, and forward and backward citations. Studies were included that reported data, by gender, on any of the following: grant applications or reapplications, awards, award amounts, award acceptance rates, or reapplication award acceptance rates. Studies that duplicated data reported in another study were excluded. Gender differences were investigated by meta-analyses and generalized linear mixed models. Doi plots and LFK indices were used to assess reporting bias. Results The searches identified 199 records, of which 13 were eligible. An additional 42 sources from forward and backward searches were eligible, for a total of 55 sources with data on one or more outcomes. The data from these studies ranged from 1975 to 2020: 49 sources were published papers and six were funders’ reports (the latter were identified by forwards and backwards searches). Twenty-nine studies reported person-level data, 25 reported application-level data, and one study reported both: person-level data were used in analyses. Award acceptance rates were 1% higher for men, which was not significantly different from women (95% CI 3% more for men to 1% more for women, k = 36, n = 303,795 awards and 1,277,442 applications, I 2 = 84%). Reapplication award acceptance rates were significantly higher for men (9%, 95% CI 18% to 1%, k = 7, n = 7319 applications and 3324 awards, I 2 = 63%). Women received smaller award amounts ( g = -2.28, 95% CI -4.92 to 0.36, k = 13, n = 212,935, I 2 = 100%). Conclusions The proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.

Female-dominated disciplines have lower evaluated research quality and funding success rates, for men and women

Gender differences in research areas and topics: An analysis of publications in 285 fields

“Invisible Sportswomen 2.0”—Digging Deeper Into Gender Bias in Sport and Exercise Science Research: Author Gender, Editorial Board Gender, and Research Quality

Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis

Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals

Bias against research on gender bias

Historical comparison of gender inequality in scientific careers across countries and disciplines

Gender disparities in UK research publishing: Differences between fields, methods and topics

A gender equality paradox in academic publishing: Countries with a higher proportion of female first-authored journal articles have larger first author gender disparities between fields

Gender differences in publication in emergency medicine journals

Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution

Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender biases in science is in the eye of the beholder

Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Comment on "Sexism in Academia is Bad for Science and a Waste of Public Funding"

The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact

Greater female first author citation advantages do not associate with reduced or reducing gender disparities in academia

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review

Gender differences in research grant allocation -- a mixed picture

Gendered Citation Patterns across Political Science and Social Science Methodology Fields

Exploring Gender Bias in Six Key Domains of Academic Science: An Adversarial Collaboration

Science for whom? The influence of the regional academic circuit on gender inequalities in Latin America