Fwiw, I’d imagine you are all less succumb to weighting other evaluators negative points (different interests at play to journal reviewers) - but still may be a bias here.
Peaked my curiosity, what sort of clever thing?
Babbling:
Allocating some of the funding using the pre-test rankings;
or the other way, using the diff between pre and post as a measure for how bad/fragile the pre was;
otherwise working out whether each evaluator leans under- or over-confident and using this to correct their post ranking.
Thanks Gavin!
Fwiw, I’d imagine you are all less succumb to weighting other evaluators negative points (different interests at play to journal reviewers) - but still may be a bias here.
Peaked my curiosity, what sort of clever thing?
Babbling:
Allocating some of the funding using the pre-test rankings;
or the other way, using the diff between pre and post as a measure for how bad/fragile the pre was;
otherwise working out whether each evaluator leans under- or over-confident and using this to correct their post ranking.
Thanks Gavin!