Good Grants will calculate and display average scores across all reviewers for each application and not the total of all reviewer's scores. This is intentional and carefully considered as offering greater integrity for your reviewing process.
If a panel of reviewers are asked to review a group of applications, there is always the possibility that for example:
- A reviewer abstains from an application due to conflict of interest
- A reviewer is recused from an application
- A reviewer runs short of time and is unable to finish reviewing all applications
- A reviewer overlooks a score and doesn't finish scoring an application
In any of these cases, relying on a total of all reviewer's scores unfairly advantages applications that have had more reviewers record their scores.
On the other hand, an average of all reviewer's scores treats all applications fairly even with results from a different quantity of reviewers. If application A is scored by 9 reviewers and entry B by 10 reviewers — the two applications can be fairly compared based on the average score of the reviewers. On the other hand, using the total of reviewer's scores, entry A will score 10% less than entry B, all other things being equal.
In order to deal with uncertainty and change, the average of all reviewer's scores is the fair and reliable approach.