Executive and Selection Committee Guidelines

Unit Executive Committee responsibilities

Each Unit Executive Committee is responsible for canvassing for nominations, promoting the honor, and forming the selection committee.

Canvassing and promotion

APS staff will provide support for general promotion of nomination opportunities for APS Fellows, Prizes, and Awards. Unit Executive Committees and standing committees should also promote honors nomination opportunities using many methods. Selection Committee members are prohibited from directly soliciting or orchestrating specific nominations for the honors they will be selecting but may encourage or promote nominations in general, including for the honors they will be selecting.

To assist committee members, APS provides a suggested timeline for prize and award executive and selection committee activities.

If officers would like to submit a nomination themselves, please reference the conflict of interest definition and examples to prevent conflicts of interest.

Selection Committees

Selection Committees recommend recipients to the appropriate entity for approval, if qualified nominees are available. Honors Selection Committees are appointed by the unit, committee, or other body which has oversight over the honor. Appointments are subject to verification of compliance with Honors Policies and Procedures by APS staff, with oversight by the respective Council Committee: Prizes and Awards or Fellowship.

Selection Committees should be composed of a chair, vice chair, and additional members. The vice chair serves one year before moving into the chair position to serve one additional year as chair. Units without a selection-committee chair and vice chair process like this should adopt and follow a process that ensures continuity, information transfer, and institutional memory from year to year. The overseeing unit, committee, or other body determines the role of the chair, i.e. convening or voting role. When the chair is a convener only, the chair may serve as substitute reviewer for nominations which otherwise lack a sufficient number of reviewers.

Guidelines for promoting equity

The APS Committees on the Status of Women in Physics and on Minorities have crafted guidelines to improve the effectiveness of award, prize and fellowship committees in finding the most qualified person from a diverse, representative pool of candidates.

Selection Committee responsibilities

The chair’s role

The Selection Committee chair shall be responsible for ensuring the review and selection process is completed on time and in within the Society’s policies and procedures. The chair shall facilitate and document the review and selection process, but if possible should not score or vote on nominees unless needed as a tiebreaker. The chair may take part in discussion of the nominees, but should be mindful of their primary role of facilitator.

Scheduling Selection Committee calls

APS recommends the Selection Committee has at least one conference call to discuss nominees and scoring. APS Honors staff can set up Zoom meetings and provide connection information with advance notice. Please contact the APS Honors team for more information.

If needed, APS staff can host an optional training session for Selection Committee members to review how to navigate the APS nominations system and answer any questions regarding procedures.

Reporting

The chair of the Selection Committee shall complete the chair report by providing conflict of interest disclosure, the committee’s selection, and a description of why the recipient was selected. Some unit bylaws require that the chair report first be shared with the Unit Executive Committee before submission to APS. Once received by APS, staff will submit the reports to the APS Council of Representatives for review and approval.

Suggested timeline: Fall prizes and awards

For funding and recognition presented in the fall, such as prizes and awards from the Division of Plasma Physics and Division of Fluid Dynamic, APS recommends the following procedures:

• December 1: Nominations open.
• January: The Unit Executive Committee reviews carryover nominees (if applicable) and begins canvassing and promotion.
• One month before nomination deadline: At this time, the Unit Executive Committee has formed the Selection Committee and reported the names to the APS Honors team.
• April 1: Nominations are due. After the nomination deadline, Selection Committees begin scoring procedures.
• April - May: Selection Committees complete scoring and discuss nominees on a conference call. Recipient(s) are selected.
• June 1: The chair report is due.

Suggested timeline: Spring prizes and awards

For funding and recognition presented in the spring, such as prizes and awards for March and April Meetings, the Division of Soft Matter, and the Division of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics, APS recommends the following procedures:

• December 1: Nominations open.
• January: The Unit Executive Committee reviews carryover nominees (if applicable) and begins canvassing and promotion.
• One month before nomination deadline: At this time, the Unit Executive Committee has formed the Selection Committee and reported the names to the APS Honors team.
• June 1: Nominations are due. After the nomination deadline, Selection Committees begin scoring procedures.
• June - July: Selection Committees complete scoring and discuss nominees on a conference call. Recipient(s) are selected.
• August 1: The chair report is due.

Suggested scoring procedure

This is the process successfully used each year by the APS Medal and Prize Committee and the Apker Award Selection Committee. It is not mandatory if your unit already has a system in place that works well.

After the nomination deadline passes, committee members will be prompted to review nominations in the APS nominations system.

Instructions for scoring in the nominations system

1. Log in to the APS nomination system with your myAPS account credentials.
2. Select "My Reviewing Assignments."
3. Review and rate each nomination from one (least recommended) to five (most recommended).

After the scoring deadline, the chair will review the committee’s scores and facilitate a discussion of the candidates.

Primary reviewer role

The chair may choose to assign each committee member as primary reviewer of a subset of nominations. The primary reviewer should be prepared to briefly summarize the nomination on the committee selection call before discussion. Primary reviewer assignments may be based loosely on area of physics, but not necessarily.

Recommendations for reaching a decision

If a clear consensus is not reached on the selection call after discussion of the scoring, voice voting or ranking candidates on the call may help the committee reach a decision.

Selection Committee conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest arise between reviewer and nominee in situations where there are close personal or professional relationships, lines of authority, or fiscal responsibility. Some examples include:

• Residing at the same institution, division, or department within the past four years
• Collaborations (co-authors, post-docs, etc.) 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, advisees, and advisors
• Nominator or participant in the nomination package

Selection Committee members are responsible for disclosing all potential conflicts of interest prior to review and assessment of nominations. The primary conflicts of concern are those between Selection Committee members and nominees and their institutions. Conflicts between selection committee members and nominators or supporters and their institutions are secondary but should be disclosed so all committee members are aware, and they can be managed by the selection committee. Selection committees are responsible for monitoring, handling, and reporting resolution for conflicts of interest.

Immediately after nominations are available for review, committee members should review the list of nominees and their institutions/departments and disclose to the entire committee any conflicts of interest as described above or other potential conflicts as the list of examples is not exhaustive. The committee should unanimously agree on a response based on the level of the conflict. Recusal from scoring and discussion of the person with whom a committee member has a conflict is likely appropriate for most cases. In more serious cases, a new committee member may need to be identified. In some cases, disclosure to the committee may be considered sufficient. The chair is responsible for documenting the details of each conflict and the committee’s unanimous response in the chair report. If the committee cannot agree unanimously, the conflicted committee member(s) should be recused from scoring and discussing the affected nomination(s).

Given the large size of many institutions where physicists work, and the number and variety of their departments/divisions, shared institutional affiliation is less of a concern in these cases than shared department/division affiliation. Similarly, co-authorship of a multi-hundred-author paper from a major collaboration should be addressed pragmatically, based on the closeness of collaboration between the specific committee member and specific nominee.

Confidentiality and information security

Individuals serving on a selection committee must not disclose information about the committee’s business to individuals outside of the selection process. Selection Committee business includes:

• The committee’s deliberations
• The number of nominations reviewed
• Conflicts of interest
• Other sensitive information

The recommended recipients are not official until approved by the APS Council of Representatives and the recipient has been notified.

If you have any questions about the review process, please contact the APS Honors program manager.