grant reviewing process. This increase in proposals has led to a degradation in the quality of reviews, as well as a shrinking pool of qualified but non-conflicted reviewers. The NSF has therefore decided to pilot a mechanism for peer review that is adapted from one first proposed by Merrifield and Saari [@nsf1]. To incentivize applicants to review well, and to deter strategic ranking, reviewers receive additional score for reviewing well which can increase them a maximum of 2 places in the final ranked list. This mechanism is somewhat different to ours as the NSF mechanism ranks proposals, whilst our mechanism returns a grade. In our mechanism, final grades returned may not totally rank the proposals. Another work which is close to ours is the CrowdGrader mechanism for peer evaluation from UC Santa Cruz [@crowdgrader]. CrowdGrader lets students submit and collaboratively grade solutions to homework assignments. The tool permitted both ranking and grading of homework. However, de Alfaro and Shavlovsky found that students much preferred to grade than to rank. They expressed uneasiness in ranking their peers, perceiving ranking as a blunt tool compared to grading. At the heart of CrowdGrader is the [*Vancouver*]{} algorithm for combining peer grades. There are 