Good Grants calculates and displays the average score across all reviewers for each application, rather than the total of all reviewers’ scores. This approach is intentional and designed to ensure fairness and accuracy in your reviewing process.
When a panel of reviewers evaluates a group of applications, several scenarios may occur:
- A reviewer abstains due to a conflict of interest
- A reviewer is recused from scoring a specific application
- A reviewer runs out of time and does not complete all assigned reviews
- A reviewer overlooks a score and leaves an application incomplete
If totals were used, applications with fewer recorded scores would receive artificially lower results, creating an unfair advantage for those scored by more reviewers.
Using averages ensures all applications are treated equally. For example:
- Application A is scored by 9 reviewers
- Application B is scored by 10 reviewers
Using averages allows these applications to be compared fairly. Using totals would incorrectly penalise Application A, causing it to appear 10% weaker solely because it received one fewer score.
Averaging results provides resilience against unavoidable inconsistencies and maintains the integrity of your reviewing outcomes.
Good to know
- Averages ensure fairness when some reviewers abstain, are recused, or do not complete their scoring.
- Totals can bias results in favour of applications with more scores.
- Averaging supports reliable and consistent comparison between applications.