Audit of Applicant Feedback – Long Descriptions

Figure 1: Quality of Peer Reviews by Criteria

Approach Originality Applicant Environment Impact
Pillar 1 68% 21% 72% 21% 20%
Pillar 2 72% 45% 61% 39% 47%
Pillar 3 79% 40% 61% 36% 48%
Pillar 4 63% 39% 60% 32% 42%
Combined pillars 70% 36% 64% 32% 38%

« Back to figure 1

Figure 2: Quality of Peer Review - Report Format

Synopsis Feedback Professional Budget Appropriate
Pillar 1 62% 79% 90% 52% 98%
Pillar 2 73% 81% 94% 57% 98%
Pillar 3 73% 88% 98% 64% 100%
Pillar 4 65% 79% 89% 50% 96%
Combined pillars 68% 81% 92% 55% 98%

« Back to figure 2

Figure 3: Quality of Scientific Officer Notes

Str/weakness Greatest impact Discussion Encouragement Feedback Budget Organized Tone Appropriate
Pillar 1 78% 83% 61% 91% 72% 67% 96% 100% 100%
Pillar 2 75% 77% 46% 88% 71% 46% 88% 100% 98%
Pillar 3 79% 89% 57% 93% 71% 57% 93% 96% 96%
Pillar 4 71% 76% 38% 93% 71% 31% 86% 100% 95%
Combined pillars 76% 80% 50% 91% 71% 50% 90% 99% 98%

« Back to figure 3

Date modified: