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