Table 4 MLE for the fourth simulation, in which some reviewers had good acumen and some had weak acumen
From: Maximum likelihood estimation of reviewers' acumen in central review setting: categorical data
| Â | R1 | R2 | R3 | R4 | R5 | R6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| 0.5 (0.11) | 0.5 (0.12) | 0.5 (0.12) | 0.86 (0.08) | 0.86 (0.08) | 0.86 (0.08) |
| 0.5 (0.12) | 0.5 (0.12) | 0.5 (0.12) | 0.86 (0.08) | 0.86 (0.08) | 0.86 (0.08) |
| 0.5 (0.09) | 0.51 (0.1) | 0.51 (0.09) | 0.89 (0.06) | 0.88 (0.07) | 0.88 (0.06) |
| 0.51 (0.09) | 0.51 (0.09) | 0.51 (0.1) | 0.91 (0.06) | 0.9 (0.06) | 0.9 (0.06) |
