Table 1 Participant characteristics.

From: Peer reviewers’ dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences

Characteristic

Number in sample (number in population)

aAge

 

 30–39

1 (1)

 40–49

3 (16)

 50–59

9 (14)

 60–69

2 (7)

 70+

1 (1)

Sex

 Female

4 (22)

 Male

12 (19)

 Prefer not to say

0 (3)

aEthnicity

 White

15 (34)

 Non-white

1 (3)

Location

 London

2 (5)

 North

6 (15)

 South

2 (7)

 Scotland

2 (3)

 Wales

1 (4)

 International

3 (7)

 Midlands

0 (2)

 N. Ireland

0 (1)

Discipline

 History

10 (22)

 Sociology

2 (7)

 Ethics, Ethics & Law

1 (2)

 Philosophy

1 (4)

 Economics

1 (1)

 Anthropology

1 (1)

 English

0 (2)

 Public Health

0 (3)

Current role

 Lecturer

5 (unknown)

 Reader

3 (unknown)

 Professor

8 (unknown)

General peer review experience

 Less than 10 grant applications

4 (unknown)

 Between 10 and 20 grant applications

1 (unknown)

 More than 20 grant applications

11 (unknown)

Type of award reviewed in this study

 Research fellowship

6 (unknown)

 Collaborative award

6 (unknown)

 University award

2 (unknown)

 Research award for health professionals

2 (unknown)

  1. aThe age (N = 5) and ethnicity (N = 7) of some of the 28 reviewers who did not participate in this study were unknown.