Follow us!
Society of Systematic Biologists
  • Home
  • Membership
  • About
    • About SSB
    • Executive Committee
    • Council
    • DEI Committee
    • Legacy Committe
    • Past and Present Trustees
    • Past councilors and executives
    • Document repository (on github)
    • Letters
    • Standing Against Racism
  • Meetings
    • Meetings
    • Past Meetings
    • Safe Evolution
    • Symposia
    • Workshops
    • Symposium Proposal Submission
    • Resources for Remote Science
  • Journals
    • Overview
    • Editors
  • Awards
    • Overview
    • Travel Awards
    • Ernst Mayr Award
    • Graduate Student Research Awards
    • Mini-ARTS Awards
    • Publisher's Award
    • Presidents' Award
    • Service Awards
    • IDEA Award
    • Ad Hoc funding
    • Claiming Your Award
    • Reviewing Award Applications
  • Contact

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).

Contact

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