MeritariaWrite criteria reviewers can apply
Each criterion should measure a distinct quality rather than reward the same evidence repeatedly.
- Describe what a low, middle, and high score demonstrates.
- Choose point limits and weights deliberately.
- Identify how missing evidence or ineligibility should be handled.
Calibrate with a practice application
Discuss differences before the committee begins its assigned workload.
- Ask reviewers to score the same practice record independently.
- Compare the reasoning behind differences, then clarify criterion descriptions.
- Agree on the review deadline and who resolves questions.
Check identity and conflicts
Blind review is a visibility setting, not a guarantee that all material is anonymous.
- Inspect the actual reviewer view for identifying details in visible answers and recommendation text. In Meritaria, blind review withholds uploaded files and direct identity fields.
- Choose which custom answers reviewers should see; do not assume written content is automatically anonymized.
- Agree how reviewers disclose a personal connection or other conflict.
- Confirm each reviewer has the intended scholarship assignments.
Discuss finalists with context
Scores inform decisions; review completeness and eligibility matter too.
- Check how many completed evaluations each finalist has.
- Discuss large score differences before relying on an average.
- Record the reasons supporting the committee recommendation.
- Keep the final award action with the authorized administrator.