Panel Chairs Research Articles

REVIEW PANEL CHAIRS AND REVIEWERS

REVIEW PANEL CHAIRS AND REVIEWERS

The representation of women on Australian clinical practice guideline panels, 2010-2020.

To assess the composition by gender of Australian clinical practice guideline development panels; to explore guideline development-related factors that influence the composition of panels. Survey of clinical guidelines published in Australia during 2010-2020 that observed the 2016 NHMRC Standards for Guidelines, identified (June 2021) in the NHMRC Clinical Practice Guideline Portal or by searching the Guideline International Network guidelines library, the Trip medical database, and PubMed. The gender of contributors to guideline development was inferred from gendered titles (guideline documents) or pronouns (online biographies). The overall proportion of guideline panel members - the guideline contributors who formally considered evidence and formulated recommendations (ie, guideline panel chairs and members) - who were women. Of 406 eligible guidelines, 335 listed the names of people who contributed to their development (82%). Of 7472 named contributors (including 511 guideline panel chairs [6.8%] and 5039 guideline panel members [67.4%]), 3514 were men (47.0%), 3345 were women (44.8%), and gender could not be determined for 612 (8.2%). A total of 215 guideline panel chairs were women (42.1%), 280 were men (54.8%); 2566 guideline panel members were men (50.9%), 2071 were women (41.1%). The proportion of female guideline panel members was smaller than 40% for 179 guidelines (53%) and larger than 60% for 71 guidelines (21%). The median guideline proportion of female panel members was smaller than 50% for all but two years (2017, 2018). The representation of women in health leadership roles in Australia does not reflect their level of participation in the health care workforce. In particular, clinical guideline development bodies should develop transparent policies for increasing the participation of women in guideline development panels.

Selling science: optimizing the research funding evaluation and decision process

PurposeIn this contribution to EDI's professional insights, the authors develop practical and evidence-based recommendations that are developed for bias mitigation, discretion elimination and process optimization in panel evaluations and decisions in research funding. An analysis is made of how the expectation of “selling science” adds layers of complexity to the evaluation and decision process. The insights are relevant for optimization of similar processes, including publication, recruitment and selection, tenure and promotion.Design/methodology/approachThe recommendations are informed by experiences and evidence from commissioned projects with European research funding organizations. The authors distinguish between three aspects of the evaluation process: written applications, enacted performance and group dynamics. Vignettes are provided to set the stage for the analysis of how bias and (lack of) fit to an ideal image makes it easier for some than for others to be funded.FindingsIn research funding decisions, (over)selling science is expected but creates shifting standards for evaluation, resulting in a narrow band of acceptable behavior for applicants. In the authors' recommendations, research funding organizations, evaluators and panel chairs will find practical ideas and levers for process optimization, standardization and customization, in terms of awareness, accountability, biased language, criteria, structure and time.Originality/valueShowing how “selling science” in research funding adds to the cumulative disadvantage of bias, the authors offer design specifications for interventions to mitigate the negative effects of bias on evaluations and decisions, improve selection habits, eliminate discretion and create a more inclusive process.

National Conference of Black Political Scientists Presidential Address

National Conference of Black Political Scientists Presidential Address

Editors' Introduction

Editors' Introduction Eve Tavor Bannet and Roxann Wheeler We are grateful to our contributors and panel chairs for enabling us to put together what is both a timely and a forward-looking volume. This edition of SECC is, as always, wide-ranging in discipline and geographical reach. The essays address media from print to performance and from digital archives of music and song, as they impact theories, pedagogies, economies, manners, and research, and pertain to the Caribbean, Ireland, North America, Britain, France, and Poland. But these interventions also come together to shed new light on particularly pressing issues of the present. Barbara Fuch's Clifford Lecture on what can be learned from Robinson Crusoe's absence from his Brazilian sugar plantation introduces discussions of race, empire, slavery, and colonial rule as these material phenomena figure in surviving records and in the classroom. We include here for the first time the Race and Empire Caucus's prize-winning essay, which will be a regular feature of SECC from now on; and we congratulate Kimberley Takahata for being the first winner of this important prize. The essays on critical race theory and pedagogy on the one hand and new databases of slavery and abolition on the other hand robustly reflect on the intersection of eighteenth-century studies with current global events. Susan Lanser's compelling Presidential Lecture on the mystery of how there came to be a Marie-Antoinette House in Maine and on the persistence of the fakelore attached to it is a fascinating story that delves deeply into the signification of French royalty in a transatlantic context and into the persistent connection of Marie-Antoinette in the U.S. to whiteness. Lanser's deep and wide cultural study heralds several critical essays on diverse eighteenth-century forms of manufacture and transportation. The Material Culture section has a strong and welcome visual component. The study of [End Page xi] material culture is a fairly recent addition to our field, but it is clearly one that is very much coming into its own. The last section consists of forums which address some pressing emerging issues: where might current trends in theory take us in regard to the study of literature? Should we retain healthy skepticism of the past's literary productions or should we adopt a less adversarial approach to literary study? How might new archives and databases alter and reshape the relationship of Irish studies to English literary and cultural studies? How can we defend the humanities in general, and what we do in the eighteenth-century in particular, against defunding and marginalization? We have learned from all the work we have included and enjoyed it. We hope you will do the same. [End Page xii] Copyright © 2020 American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies

European Research Council: excellence and leadership over time from a gender perspective

Abstract European Research Council Grants (ERC) have become the most important vehicle for funding scientific research in the EU. Since their creation in 2007, they have provided funding for around 7,000 of the nearly 70,000 proposals for research projects submitted. With a success rate of about 11%, these Grants are highly competitive. Despite major advancement of women’s participation in research activity, women overall remain the minority in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM disciplines). Against that backdrop, this article analyses men’s and women’s presence in ERC Grants. The gender balance in the ERC Grant, have been examined in three dimensions: Excellence Awarded; Scientific Leadership Position; and Time Series Evolution. The results show that female presence is lower than men as submitted (26% vs 74%), granted (22% vs 78%), expert panel members (28% vs 72%), and as a panel chair (26% vs 74%). State-space prediction of the future pattern of these grants shows that time has no clearly beneficial effect on women’s participation as applicants, granted, expert panel members or panel chairs, particularly in the area of Physics and Engineering.

Faculty Diversity at Academic Surgical Meetings—Opportunity for Action?

BackgroundThe American Surgical Association delineated deficiencies of diversity, equity, and inclusion within academic surgery. Opportunities to increase diversity are membership in surgical societies and leadership development. We hypothesized that surgical society meetings represent additional opportunities, using gender diversity as an example. MethodsPublished programs from annual meetings of three large surgical societies were reviewed. Participants’ gender was classified by first name. Online search was used for equivocal names. We used JMP Pro 14.1.0 for univariate and multivariate logistic regression. ResultsDuring six meetings (2016–2018), 415 sessions with 4078 participants were included, 61% educational panels with invited faculty and 39% abstract sessions. Across all meetings, 32% of abstracts were presented by women, 22% of panel chairs or invited faculty were women. Fifty-four percent of male meeting participants were invited by their societies as moderator or speaker, and 41% of female participants were invited faculty. Fifty-nine percent of all panel chairs had no woman participant. In both univariate and multivariate regression, women had more than threefold the odds of presenting an abstract than presenting on a panel (p < 0.0001). Women were three times more likely to present in a session that was co-chaired by a woman (< 0.0001). ConclusionsOne in three abstract presenters in national surgery meetings was a woman, demonstrating engagement in the societies. Historically, men are more likely invited as faculty than women. The presence of a woman co-chair on a panel correlated with increased female participation. Similar scenarios may apply to other underrepresented groups.

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Setting priorities for knowledge translation of Cochrane reviews for health equity: Evidence for Equity

BackgroundA focus on equity in health can be seen in many global development goals and reports, research and international declarations. With the development of a relevant framework and methods, the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group has encouraged the application of an ‘equity lens’ to systematic reviews, and many organizations publish reviews intended to address health equity.The purpose of the Evidence for Equity (E4E) project was to conduct a priority-setting exercise and apply an equity lens by developing a knowledge translation product comprising summaries of systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library. E4E translates evidence from systematic reviews into ‘friendly front end’ summaries for policy makers.MethodsThe following topic areas with high burdens of disease globally, were selected for the pilot: diabetes/obesity, HIV/AIDS, malaria, nutrition, and mental health/depression. For each topic area, a “stakeholder panel” was assembled that included policymakers and researchers. A systematic search of Cochrane reviews was conducted for each area to identify equity-relevant interventions with a meaningful impact. Panel chairs developed a rating sheet which was used by all panels to rank the importance of these interventions by: 1) Ease of Implementation; 2) Health System Requirements; 3)Universality/Generalizability/Share of Burden; and 4) Impact on Inequities/Effect on equity.The ratings of panel members were averaged for each intervention and criterion, and interventions were ordered according to the average overall ratings.ResultsStakeholder panels identified the top 10 interventions from their respective topic areas. The evidence on these interventions is being summarized with an equity focus and the results posted online, at http://methods.cochrane.org/equity/e4e-series.ConclusionsThis method provides an explicit approach to setting priorities by systematic review groups and funders for providing decision makers with evidence for the most important equity-relevant interventions.

Progress and Prospects in the Field of Biomass and Waste to Energy and Added-Value Materials

This paper reports the conclusions of the three panel discussions held during the WasteEng2016 Conference in Albi, France (http://www.wasteeng2016.org/). It explores the research and development trends aiming at the production of energy and added value materials from waste and/or biomass. Three approaches are investigated: thermochemical conversion (Panel chairs: M. Castaldi, J.M. Lavoie, C. Vandecasteele), biochemical conversion (Panel chairs: J. Legrand, P.T. Vasudevan, W. Verstraete) and, sustainable construction and energy storage (Panel chairs: J. van Deventer, Y. Pontikes, X. Py). The thermochemical conversion session addressed feedstock, technologies for energy recovery and material recycling, gas cleaning and the marketplace. It is shown that combustion (WtE) is the leading technology and that also much research is devoted to gasification and pyrolysis. The biochemical conversion session noted the ability to yield products applied to different sectors such as food and feed, chemical, biofuels, biomaterials and many others. Innovation oriented towards better exploitation of the existing biocatalytic activity of known enzymes and microbes is also discussed. Recycling of solid and liquid waste received substantial focus in construction. Materials for thermal energy storage from waste are considered a promising use of recycled materials. The paper also shows how entrepreneurs introducing new technology have to work with both technical and commercial uncertainty, which renders investment into new technology a high risk. Finally, this paper identifies, in the three sections developed below, the trends for ongoing research and highlights the direction where the research is trending from this point forward.

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

LGBTQ Twentieth Anniversary Forum: Introduction

LGBTQ Twentieth Anniversary Forum:Introduction Edited by Jill Dolan, Kim Marra, and Robert A. Schanke This forum archives events marking the twentieth anniversary of the LGBTQ Focus Group of the Association for Theatre in Higher Education during the 2015 conference in Montreal. Although individual papers and panels on LGBTQ subjects had been presented at earlier ATHE conferences, a collective plan for a separate focus group, originally called Lesbian and Gay Theatre (LGT), was first broached at an ad hoc meeting during the 1990 ATHE conference in Chicago. The following year, two officially scheduled LGT organizational meetings at the Seattle conference led to a successful petition for associate status, which enabled LGT to sponsor panels at the 1992, 1993, and 1994 ATHE conferences on the way to achieving full focus-group status at the 1995 conference in San Francisco. Reflecting expansions in the field, the focus group name was changed to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered (LGBT) beginning with the 2003 conference program, and to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (LGBTQ) beginning with the 2012 program. ATHE president Henry Bial formally recognized the twentieth anniversary of the focus group’s full status during the general membership meeting of the Montreal conference on Saturday, August 1st. For the occasion, Sara Warner was invited by ATHE president-elect Patricia Ybarra and ATHE’s Vice President for Advocacy and LGBTQ Conference Planner, Kareem Khubchandani, to speak about the significance of this milestone. Accordingly, the forum begins with Warner’s remarks, followed by the proceedings of two panels held on Sunday morning, August 2nd, to commemorate the anniversary: “LGBTQ Historical Scholarship” and “Queer Futures.” The proceedings are presented here in two parts, each curated and introduced by the respective panel chairs, with a connecting bridge by Jill Dolan. —Kim Marra [End Page 23] Jill Dolan Jill Dolan is the Annan Professor of English, a professor of theatre, and Dean of the College at Princeton University. Among other books, she is the author of The Feminist Spectator as Critic (1988; second edition, 2012); Utopia in Performance: Finding Hope at the Theatre (2005); and The Feminist Spectator in Action: Feminist Criticism for Stage and Screen (2013). Her blog The Feminist Spectator won the 2010–11 George Jean Nathan Award for Dramatic Criticism. Kim Marra Kim Marra is a professor of theatre arts and American studies at the University of Iowa. Her publications include Strange Duets: Impresarios and Actresses in American Theatre, 1865–1914, winner of the 2008 Callaway Prize; and “Horseback Views: A Queer Hippological Performance,” in Animal Acts: Performing Species Today (2014). Her 2012 article “Riding, Scarring, Knowing: A Queerly Embodied Performance Historiography” in Theatre Journal won the ATHE Outstanding Article Award and honorable mention for ASTR’s Oscar G. Brockett Essay Prize. Robert A. Schanke Robert A. Schanke is Professor Emeritus of Central College in Pella, Iowa. Among other books, he is the author of Shattered Applause: The Lives of Eva Le Gallienne, which was a Lambda Literary Award finalist in 1993, as well as That Furious Lesbian: The Story of Mercedes de Acosta, which won ForeWord Magazine’s Book of the Year Award for G/L nonfiction in 2003, and Queer Theatre and the Legacy of Cal Yeomans (2011). Copyright © 2016 Johns Hopkins University Press

Conforming against Expectations: The Formalism of Nonlawyers at the World Trade Organization

There is a long-standing debate about the relative merits of lawyers and nonlawyers as adjudicators in international dispute settlement. Some argue that lawyers encourage predictability and coherence in jurisprudence. Others believe that nonlawyers better protect state interests. Both sides of the debate assume that lawyers are more formalist and nonlawyers more instrumentalist. However, this assumption has never been empirically verified. Combining multiple-imputation, matching, and postmatching regression analysis, we find that panel chairs without law degrees and substantial experience make greater efforts than lawyers to signal adherence to formalist rules and competence in the World Trade Organization’s jurisprudence. The Appellate Body deems the signal credible, in turn rewarding inexperienced nonlawyers with a decrease in reversal rates. Our findings suggest that nonlawyers display levels of formalism that are similar to (if not greater than) those of lawyers, which calls into question one of the classical reservations against nonlawyers serving in adjudicatory positions.

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Precedent Citation at the WTO - Shifting the Empirical Focus to Panelists

Scholars of judicial decision making have long theorized and studied how personal characteristics are related to judicial outcomes in the domestic sphere. But few such studies have been done in the international legal environment, where scholars largely neglect the person of the judge as a relevant dimension for understanding decision making and judicial outcomes. We turn our attention to the WTO dispute settlement system and its rules on precedent usage. Since the WTO’s official rules on precedent usage is ambiguous — and thus fail to provide determinative guidance — we show that personal characteristics may matter greatly in how individual panelists approach precedents usage in panel decisions.Applying both parametric and non-parametric methods, we find that panel chairs who are lawyers cite precedents with less frequency than chairs who are not lawyers. By contrast, we find insufficient evidence to support that chairs from common law countries cite precedent at rates differing from those of chairs from non-common law countries. Overall, our findings suggest that the background of those appointed to the panels plays an important role in the creation and flexibility of WTO rulemaking through the use of precedent.

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Review Panel Chairs and Reviewers

Reprint: 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS Guideline for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults.

Reprint: 2013 AHA/ACC/TOS Guideline for the Management of Overweight and Obesity in Adults.

A social network-empowered research analytics framework for project selection

Traditional approaches for research project selection by government funding agencies mainly focus on the matching of research relevance by keywords or disciplines. Other research relevant information such as social connections (e.g., collaboration and co-authorship) and productivity (e.g., quality, quantity, and citations of published journal articles) of researchers is largely ignored. To overcome these limitations, this paper proposes a social network-empowered research analytics framework (RAF) for research project selections. Scholarmate.com, a professional research social network with easy access to research relevant information, serves as a platform to build researcher profiles from three dimensions, i.e., relevance, productivity and connectivity. Building upon profiles of both proposals and researchers, we develop a unique matching algorithm to assist decision makers (e.g. panel chairs or division managers) in optimizing the assignment of reviewers to research project proposals. The proposed framework is implemented and tested by the largest government funding agency in China to aid the grant proposal evaluation process. The new system generated significant economic benefits including great cost savings and quality improvement in the proposal evaluation process.