SSB Award Reviewing

Become a Reviewer!

​Are you interested in supporting students and other systematics researchers by reviewing proposals sent to the Society of Systematic Biologists? Each year, the SSB Awards Committee handles ~200 award applications. We rely on our expert colleagues to evaluate proposals and abstracts. As the volume of proposals grows each year, we understand that it is critical to have a diverse and active reviewer pool. If you would like to be added to our reviewer database, please click the button below to submit your contact information.
Volunteer to Review SSB Awards
Below we have provided information about the review process for our three main awards. This information is intended to prepare reviewers for the task of evaluating award submissions. Moreover, we hope that by providing the reviewer guidelines online, applicants will be able to better understand how to their submissions are judged by our review panels. This transparency can help students (in particular) improve their applications and consider the challenges of the review process.

Reviewer Guidelines: The Ernst Mayr Award

Evaluation for the Mayr competition takes place in two stages. First, abstracts are scored by a panel of reviewers. Then 4-6 judges select the winner(s) from the finalists presenting at the Evolution Meeting.

Abstracts:
Reviewers evaluating the abstracts submitted to the Ernst Mayr competition are sent all of the abstracts to read. The Awards Committee removes identifying information from all abstracts before they are sent to the reviewers. We ask that all reviewers only consider the quality of the written abstract and the description of the work. The reviewers will then indicate, for each abstract, if the talk should definitely be included in the Mayr symposium, if it should be considered if there is space available, or if it should definitely not be included in the symposium. If a reviewer feels that they have any conflict of interest with an abstract, they should indicate this in the comment line provided. 

Talks:
The Awards Committee will assemble a panel of 4-5 judges from the SSB members and systematics experts attending the Evolution Meeting. This panel will also include one member of the Awards Committee (not the Awards Director). The judges are required to view every talk in the symposium. They must then provide an overall score/ranking for the talk and evaluate the research and presentation. We also ask judges to indicate if it is clear the student has ownership of the study/ideas/etc. The talk evaluation form asks the judges to rate the quality of the research and presentation based on the following:
  • ​Research
    • Importance/novelty/relevance of the study
    • Creativity of the study
    • Quality/comprehensiveness of the study
    • Potential for long-term impact on the field of systematics
  • Presentation
    • Clear and succinct communication of ideas
    • Well-organized and logically presented slides
    • Overall quality of the presentation (figures, tables, videos, animations, etc)
When all talks have been evaluated, the judges panel meets during a break in the conference to discuss the finalists and select a winner. The chair of the judges panel (a member of the Awards Committee) will summarize the results and provide the name of the awardee to the Awards Director. The winner is then announced by the SSB President at the SSB Presidential address during the conference. Previous Mayr Award winners are listed on the award page. Additionally, some of the winners' talks were recorded and are available online (see links).

Reviewer Guidelines: Graduate Student Research Awards

The GSRA is SSB's largest award competition. We received 84 proposals in 2017 and anticipate that this number will only get larger each year. Thus, we work to assemble a large reviewer pool to ensure that each proposal is evaluated by at least 3 experts. Reviewers are all sent a form to identify proposals (based on titles and applicant names) that they cannot review because of conflicts-of-interest. We suggest that reviewers use their best judgement when identifying conflicts-of-interest. 

Reviewers are sent 5-9 proposals and asked to complete an online-evaluation form for each of the applications they are given to review. They are asked to give constructive feedback that will be sent to the applicants and hopefully help them improve their work and/or application for future funding opportunities. The questions are:
  1. Do the proposed activities have the potential to lead to successful data collection/analysis and support the initialization or completion of the applicant’s graduate research in systematics?
  2. Please provide any additional comments about the merits of the proposal or other constructive feedback for the applicant.
  3. Please rate this proposal on the following scale: fair, good, very good, or excellent.
In their evaluation, reviewers are also given an opportunity to provide additional confidential comments that are only read by the SSB Awards Committee. After all proposal reviews have been submitted, the Awards Committee reads each one to ensure that all proposals have been appropriately reviewed. Then, the award recipients are selected from the proposals with the overall highest reviewer ratings.

Reviewer Guidelines: Mini-ARTS Grants

This award provides funding for taxonomic studies and is open to all career stages. For proposals submitted to this program, we work to find enough reviewers so that each proposals is evaluated by 3 people. Reviewers are all sent a form to identify proposals (based on titles and applicant names) that they cannot review because of conflicts-of-interest. We suggest that reviewers use their best judgement when identifying conflicts-of-interest. 

​Reviewers are sent 5-9 proposals and asked to complete an online-evaluation form for each of the applications they are given to review. They are asked to give constructive feedback that will be sent to the applicants and hopefully help them improve their work and/or application for future funding opportunities. The questions are:
  1. Do the efforts described in the proposal fit the intended objectives of the Mini-ARTS program?
  2. Will the proposed activities effectively address the applicant's stated goals?
  3. Please provide any additional comments about the merits of the proposal or other constructive feedback for the applicant.
  4. Please rate this proposal on the following scale: fair, good, very good, or excellent.
In their evaluation, reviewers are also given an opportunity to provide additional confidential comments that are only read by the SSB Awards Committee. After all proposal reviews have been submitted, the Awards Committee reads each one to ensure that all proposals have been appropriately reviewed. Then, the award recipients are selected from the proposals with the overall highest reviewer ratings.

Contact

If you have any questions or comments for the Awards Committee about this process, please email the SSB Awards Director (​awards@systematicbiologists.org).