Presentation on theme: "SDM 2012 Student Paper Awards"— Presentation transcript:
1SDM 2012 Student Paper Awards Rob TaylorStructures TC Meeting4/24/2012
2Student Awards Process for SDM (Long Range Planning Requirements) Student papers can be scheduled throughout the entire week of the conference (M - Th).First round of the contest will be based on the manuscripts. All the student paper manuscripts will be evaluated using predetermined criteria to be provided by Student Paper Chair to a panel of judges representing all the TCs and co-located conferences.This review of the manuscripts will be the responsibility of the panel of judges and will be coordinated by Student Paper Chair.Based on the manuscript ratings for all the student manuscripts, the Student Paper Chair will down select the Top 6 manuscripts for the second round of the contest.The second round of the contest will consist of judging the actual presentations of the students. The Student Paper Chair will provide the judging criteria.The Student Paper Chair will assemble a panel of judges for the Top 6 paper presentations.Top 6 student papers will be judged in a special evening (recommended Tuesday, but could be Sunday or Monday, to the discretion of the SDM Organizing Committee) judging session. This session is expected to run for 3.5 – 4 hours.
3Student Awards Process for SDM (Long Range Planning Requirements) The SDM Student Paper Chair is only responsible for selecting the Jefferson Goblet and the American Society for Composite (ASC) student paper award winners.The 6 finalists based on manuscripts will include at least 2 composite material or composite structures related papers.The highest ranked paper based on manuscript and presentation will receive the Jefferson Goblet Award.The highest ranked composite related paper will receive the ASC student paper award. If the Jefferson Goblet award is given to a composite related paper, the second ranked composite related paper will receive the ASC award.The names of the Jefferson Goblet and ASC awardees will be shared with the Structures TC. The Structures TC will be responsible for selecting the Lockheed Martin and Hilton award winners. The winners of the Jefferson Goblet and ASC awards will be excluded from receiving the Structures TC sponsored student paper awards.
4Time Line for Student Paper Competition 24 Aug – Student Paper Chair Sends draft judging criteria to SDM planning committee7 Sep - SDM planning committee finalizes judging criteria15 Oct – Chairs provide list of all student papers to SDM Student Paper Chair.25 Oct – Send manuscript judging criteria to authors.10 Jan – Contact TC reps and conference chairs for list of manuscript reviewers.28 Feb – Manuscript reviewer assignments complete.1 Mar - Send oral presentation judging criteria to authors.7 Mar - Contact TC reps and conference chairs for list of presentation reviewers.30 Mar – Notify students that have not submitted manuscript that they have until 2 Apr to submit manuscript.2 Apr – Student manuscript deadline3 Apr – Contact delinquent students to inform them that their paper has been withdrawn from student competition.9 Apr - Manuscript reviews complete, TC/conference reps give rankings to student papers chair11 Apr - Telecon to downselect 6 finalists12 APR – Student papers chair notifies all students of statusApr 24 - Student presentation session at SDM Conference
5Manuscript Judging Criteria Evaluation Criteria (a)Raw score by evaluator (b)Weight(c)Weighted Points(d) = (b)x(c)1. Originality______ (Max. 10)2.5________ (Max. 25)2. Technical Content & Quality3.5________ (Max. 35)3. Relevance of Contribution1.5________ (Max. 15)4. Organization and Clarity______ (Max .10)TOTAL Points_____ (Max. 50)________ (Max 100)Personal Contribution criterion deleted because the planning committee felt it was not possible to evaluate
6Oral Presentation Judging Criteria CategoryMax PossibleINTRODUCTIONThe research question/hypothesis was clearly statedThe goals and specific objectives were presentedThe project had sufficient, supporting background20METHODS & RESULTSThe methods were clearly outlined/explainedThe presenter acknowledged limitations to the studyThe results were clearly explained and significant results were highlightedCONCLUSIONSA review/summary of the project was presentedThe significance of the results was discussedThe applicability of the results was discussedPRESENTATION STYLEPresentation aids were clear and readablePresentation was well-structured and logicalPresentation fit into the allotted timeThe student seemed knowledgeableThe student exhibited appropriate voice projection, eye contact, confidence, and reliance on notesThe student responded well to questions from the audience40Total Score100
7Manuscript Reviews 127 student abstracts 99 student manuscripts uploadedVery tight schedule—Submission deadline April 2 to review deadline April 9 (missed)Structural Dynamics had heavy review burden—difficulty completingStructures TC reviewers—very prompt (Thank you!!!)Most 3 reviews, some 2Subcommittee organization very helpful in completing processStructural Dynamics31MDO17Structures14Materials12ASC7NDAWind Energy Technology5GSF3Design EngineeringTotal99Mike HyerMoshe DombLisa HardawayMary MahlerMike RossJeanette DomberMichael EnrightEric LundgrenJoe HackelMarc SchultzMichael WolffJohn WangMaenghyo ChoJohanne HealdMark SensmeierStan SmeltzerAnthony PalazottoHarry Hilton—willing but recused
8Finalists8 students invited to present at Tuesday evening judging session6 Finalists Eligible for Jefferson Goblet—good diversity: 1 each fromStructures (composites)Wind Energy TechnologyASC (Adaptive Structures Conf.) (composites)Structural DynamicsMDOGSF2 composites papers in 6 finalists eligible for ASC (Amer. Soc. Comp.) awardNext 2 Structures manuscripts eligible for Structures TC awards but not Jefferson Goblet or ASC award
9ObservationsAt Fall planning meeting each TC/conference decided to review its own manuscripts to ensure technical expertise of reviewers—accepting inevitable variation and potential conflict of interestIn the end some TC’s felt each TC should have a finalist—need more than 6Structural Dynamics had heavy review burdenPersonal Opinion: Tuesday evening judging session is very difficult to manage, conflicts with all TC meetings, and is unfair to studentsIntractable if additional awards addedI don’t know best solution but LRP really needs to address and revise processASC and ASC need to get together and resolve their acronym conflictBall provided excellent support—had to rearrange assignments for some papers initially assigned 3 Ball reviewers