Fairness in Higher Education Research and Innovation Funding in the UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my estimation the paper puts the cart before the horse. Its general argument would be significantly strengthened, if it would incorporate some sort of null hypothesis or exploration of alternative explanatory models. 

In other words, "elite" institutions, pride themselves on their elite status being deserved, and this would then presumably be reflective in other measurements. Systems like, guardian university ranking, the UK Research Excellence Framework, THE university rankings etc. In short, by having a comparative analysis that investigates if the outcomes of clustering funding in Russel Group Universities, CANNOT be explained by other factors. The presented argument would gain a lot more validity. In its current form, it appears unconvincing. 

Furthermore, the discussion section should address the difficulty of balancing different value assumption, against each other, e.g. meritocracy, fostering the next generation, inclusion etc. Acknowledging the imperfect compromises that need to be made in decision making. Henceforth, not every disproportinate outcome is attributable to bias. 

In conclusion, without addressing these fundamental issues, the paper falls quite flat. However, if addressed, and the outcome becomes robust, despite these counter-explanatory models. Then the paper, would make a worthwhile and intressting finding to publish. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your study. You have selected an important and timely topic. The paper is contextualised and rationalised effectively and the reasons for the study compellingly presented - indeed, the institutional context of universities is rarely spoken about in relation to EDI. Your paper offers an original contribution to EDI debates in research funding and will no doubt be helpful to future scholar keen to build on your evidence of bias in research funding. The paper needs some minor improvements:

1. The front end of the paper is stronger in relation to the structure, flow of arguments, and syntax. However, this is not as strong throughout, and the authors are encouraged to proof-read the work, as some sentences lack coherence (example p. 5, second para, first sentence; p. 13, first para, last sentence, second para, third sentence);

2. Page 8 - The end of the first para presents some stark statistics for the Post-92 universities. Here to further expose the seriousness of the impact on EDI, I suggest you include data on the scale of diversity of staff and students in these insitutions to evidence its inclusion;

3. Table 3 spanning page 10 and 11 - the table should be on one page for clarity especially as the headings are on the previous page on their own;

4. Table 4 needs to be explained more clearly to the reader. The table contains "value of total requested" - clarify the total of "what" and how it is presented (%) - for example if it is 30%, then what was the 100% (all the costs in applications?) - this is not clear - what are those percentages compared to?

5. Page 14, first para - "they also receive more support for their bids from UKRI" - clarify and explain how this support is received? Is it support pre-award? This is not clear;

6. Page 14, second para - It is not clear what you mean when you state "...potential factor for experience" - what experience do you refer to?

7. The Discussion section is not a discussion - it is further analysis which needs to be introduced more explicitly and clearly to the reader. Explain what is done here with the suggested measurements of EDI and why. Last paragraph on page 15 comes as a surprise - the authors are conducting this analysis with the Gini index - this needs to be earlier in the paper as analysis not discussion.

8. Page 15. Pinkett (2023) - ref missing

9. Page 15, second para - how is it observed that ESRC use Gini? Not clear.

10. Third para - logic - why start the sentence with "therefore"? It does not flow logically from previous para. The text on this page might need to be moved around so the whole narrative about these measures flow more effectively. First introduce these measures, and then go into more detail. 

11. Table 7 - the three scores need to be clearly introduced in text.

12. Why are Conclusions and Recommendations in bold?

13. Page 17, first para - the words after semi-colon should not be capitalised.

14. Page 17, "UKRI have a lot to do" sounds too colloquial.

15. The recommendations are very targeted and compelling, however it is also important to state that the authors are aware that these measures are not currently available or inadequate - e.g. any data on diverse representations in decision-making? This would further strenghten the case for these great recommendations. 

16. Another point for reflection should be randomisation and its potential for change.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the changes are acceptable