Prize & Award Selection Committee Guidelines
Creating a Reviewer Account
To create a reviewer account in FluidReview, log in to the FluidReview APS Prizes and Awards Nominations website with your APS website username and password, then close out the browser window. You do not need to fill out any information. If you are a chair or a regular member, APS staff will grant you access to your assigned nominations in FluidReview.
Review and Scoring
After the nomination deadline passes, committee members will receive an email with two links: (1) access to nominations and scoring in FluidReview and (2) access to a secure file-sharing site containing the nomination summary spreadsheet.
Score each nomination between 1 and 5 in FluidReview, with 1 being least recommended and 5 most recommended. In order to equally distribute the scores, each committee member’s score must total three times the number of nominees reviewed. For example, if you are reviewing a total of ten nominations for an award, your sum of scores should equal 30. We recommend downloading the nominee summary spreadsheet and using it to calculate your total score before entering your final scores into FluidReview.
After the scoring deadline, APS staff will compile the scores, sort the nominations from highest to lowest average score, and post them to the secure file-sharing site. The chair will suggest a “cut-score” to the committee, narrowing consideration to only the higher scoring nominations. The committee will have three days to review the cut-score and send the chair any additional nominations who scored below the cut-score that they think merit serious consideration for the award.
After finalizing the discussion list, the chair will assign each committee member as primary reviewer on a subset of nominations. The primary reviewer should be prepared to briefly summarize (in less than a minute) the nomination on the committee selection call before discussion. Primary reviewer assignments may be based loosely on area of physics, but not necessarily. It is more important for the primary reviewer to have carefully reviewed the nomination in order to provide a synopsis on the selection call.
Instructions for Reviewing and Scoring Nominations
Go to FluidReview and log in with your APS website username and password.
On the authorization page, click “Allow”.
Click the link Review Nominations.
You will see list of nominations assigned to you for review. If you are reviewing for more than one prize or award, use the dropdown list in the upper-right corner labeled "Award:" to view each list of nominations.
Rate each nomination from 1 to 5; 1 is least recommended, 5 is most recommended to receive the prize or award.
Use the entire range to distribute the scores so the total of your scores equal three times the number of nominations scored. E.g. if you score 10 nominations, the sum of the ten scores should equal 30. If you believe you have a conflict of interest with a nominee, click on the name of the nominee and then click "report issue/conflict" button in the upper right corner.
Located in the lower left corner, use the "Save" button often, and use the "Submit" button after you have completed all nominations in your list.
Please save a backup copy of your scores by using the "download my rankings" button.
The committee should schedule a one hour selection call, and a second optional selection call if further deliberation is needed. The selection calls will be conducted via conference or video call. Email email@example.com, subject line: Conference Call Request, and provide the name of the selection committee, date and time of the call(s), if video or phone only is preferred, and staff will provide access information. The agreed upon short list of top ranked nominations shall be discussed. The primary reviewer will summarize each nomination for the committee. After the committee discusses the nominations, final scoring will determine the recipient(s).
Conflicts of Interest
The following connections between selection committee members and nominees are conflicts of interest:
- Residing at the same institution within the past four years
- Collaborations published within the past four years
- Financial via direct chain of command and/or participation in tenure, promotion, salary or forms of support by either party
- Member of the same center or sharing any funding contract
- Relationship due to immediate blood relation, current or prior marriage or civil union
- Current or prior students, post-docs, advisees, and advisors
- Nominator or participant in the nomination package
Before scoring nominations, committee members should review the list of nominees and disclose to the committee chair any potential conflicts of interest. If the chair has a conflict, they should disclose it to the committee. A new chair may need to be identified, depending on the level of conflict. The committee minus the chair will vote to determine if the chair must be replaced due to conflict, or if recusal is sufficient.
Committee members and chairs with conflicts must recuse themselves from scoring and discussion of the person with whom they have a conflict. Specifically, they cannot be on the conference call while that person is discussed.
Confidentiality and Information Security
The committee's deliberations are confidential. All scoring and discussion of nominees shall only be conducted via conference calls or using the secure site. No scores, or discussion of nominations, shall be conducted via email. Names of nominees considered but not selected should never be included in chair reports. This is for information security purposes, and to protect APS and its volunteers from possible legal action and liability.
The recommended recipients are not official until approved by council, and the recipient has been notified. Please do not disclose the recipients until APS has made a public announcement.
If you have any questions about the review process, please contact Mary Raucci (firstname.lastname@example.org).