Face-to-face panel meetings versus remote evaluation of fellowship applications

<p>The data shared here has been used in the following paper: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/5/e047386.full</p> <ul> <li>proposal_id: an anonymise identifier for the proposal</li> <li>panel_id: an id referencing to the panel in which the proposal was evaluated</li> <li>referee1: grade given by referee number 1, on a 6-point scale (A, AB, B, BC, C, D)</li> <li>referee2: grade given by referee number 2, on a 6-point scale (A, AB, B, BC, C, D)</li> <li>triage: triage group of the proposal (F: funded, R: rejected, D: discussion)</li> <li>final_decision_ref: final decision using the reference method (F: funded, R: rejected)</li> <li>random_selection_ref: random selection using the reference method (TRUE/FALSE)</li> <li>final_decision_test_2r: final decision using the test method with two referees (F: funded, R: rejected)</li> <li>random_selection_test_2r: random selection using the test method with two referees (TRUE/FALSE)</li> <li>referee3: : grade given by referee number 3, on a 6-point scale (A, AB, B, BC, C, D)</li> <li>final_decision_test_3r: final decision using the test method with three referees (F: funded, R: rejected)</li> <li>random_selection_test_3r: random selection using the test method with three referees (TRUE/FALSE)</li> </ul>