Research brief: Making research applications anonymous

We led a trial across Australia to study the effects of anonymising applications for the use of specialised scientific equipment. The twofold purpose of the study was to observe the degree and existence of disparities, and to evaluate how anonymising applications would affect application scores, success rates and resource allocation based on the gender and career seniority of the lead researcher.The trial involved four cross-disciplinary research entities that manage access to national scientific facilities: •Anglo-Australian Telescope (AAT)•Australian Centre for Neutron Scattering (ACNS)•Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) •National Computational Merit Allocation Scheme (NCMAS)The entities implemented anonymisation differently. AAT, ACNS, and NCMAS required applicants to anonymise their applications by excluding names and affiliations in the application text, using third-person language, and providing team expertise and background in a separate document. ATNF applied ‘semi-anonymisation’ by using first initials and surnames for names, removing affiliations, shifting the applicant list to the last page, and arranging it alphabetically to conceal the lead investigator's identity. We modelled the data from each entity individually to make allowances for the differences in implementing anonymisation. We accounted for factors such as the career seniority of the lead investigator and the type of program features where the entities provided those data. We then conducted a meta-analysis to explore the overall effects of anonymisation across all four entities. *Key findings*The introduction of anonymisation boosted the success rates for applications led by early-career researchers at ACNS, irrespective of the applicant's gender. Before anonymisation, there were no differences in success rates according to career seniority at ACNS and NCMAS, the two entities for which career seniority data were available. At ACNS only, anonymisation increased the success rates for early-career researchers, while success rates for more senior-career researchers decreased.In gender-related outcomes, there was a noteworthy absence of gender differences in application scores, success rates and allocated resources before anonymisation at all four entities. The introduction of anonymisation generally maintained the existing gender equity landscape, with one organisation experiencing improved success rates for women-led applications. At AAT only, anonymisation elevated women's success rates, with higher success rates for women-led than men-led applications after anonymisation.*Conclusions*Anonymising applications for scientific equipment opens doors for early-career researchers, enhancing their chances of success. Since no prior gender gap existed, anonymisation would not be expected to impact gendered outcomes. Our results confirm this. The implications extend beyond application outcomes, representing only one piece of the puzzle contributing to inequity in STEM research1. By enhancing success rates for early career researchers, anonymisation may create a positive ripple effect in the career pipeline, diversifying the research pool, and supporting the broader issue—retaining and advancing researchers facing barriers in STEM research. Future research examining cultural, racial, and other biases will be key to refining equity efforts in the STEM research sector.