Anonymization: the future is unbiased
Blind evaluation as an effective tool in creating equal opportunities?
Conference
Format: Poster
Topic: 9. Responsibility, Ethics, and Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) in Research and Innovation
Abstract
The European Commission has launched a "blind evaluation" pilot project for the two-phase calls in the Work Programme 2023-2024. The purpose is to remove any actual or potential bias against the gender of the applicants, their country of origin, or similar, in the proposal evaluation process. At the Institute of Physics of the Czech Academy of Sciences, we applied the concept of blind evaluation to the MSCA COFUND Physics for Future (P4F) programme in the first round of selection of 30 postdoctoral fellows.
We present this innovative evaluation process, including how it was perceived by both the applicants and evaluators, along with the challenges faced by RMAs.
Our evaluation was a full-remote two-step process. In the initial round, candidates submitted anonymized written project proposals. In the second round, during a 45-minute interview, identities were disclosed, and candidates' CVs became part of the evaluation.
Although somewhat common in the commercial sphere, anonymization is still relatively new in the research environment and presents several challenges. First, it was necessary to introduce the process in detail to both applicants and evaluators and highlight its specifics through informative webinars. Despite careful preparation and briefing, we had to be available for email support and thoroughly check the submitted applications. Any identity-related information inadvertently left in the proposals had to be manually removed. It was very demanding in terms of management, time, and effort.
When assessing the first open call, we consider the unique anonymization concept to be a success. Two-thirds of the evaluators and more than half of the applicants viewed anonymization positively, believing it contributed to a fairer evaluation. However, there was a significant difference in perspectives between candidates and evaluators regarding the difficulty of formulating or evaluating an anonymous research proposal.