Presentation on theme: "SDM 2012 Student Paper Awards Rob Taylor Structures TC Meeting 4/24/2012."— Presentation transcript:
SDM 2012 Student Paper Awards Rob Taylor Structures TC Meeting 4/24/2012
Student 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.
Student 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.
Time Line for Student Paper Competition 24 Aug – Student Paper Chair Sends draft judging criteria to SDM planning committee 7 Sep - SDM planning committee finalizes judging criteria 15 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 deadline 3 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 chair 11 Apr - Telecon to downselect 6 finalists 12 APR – Student papers chair notifies all students of status Apr 24 - Student presentation session at SDM Conference
Manuscript 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 & Quality______ (Max. 10)3.5________ (Max. 35) 3. Relevance of Contribution______ (Max. 10)1.5________ (Max. 15) 4. Organization and Clarity______ (Max.10)2.5________ (Max. 25) TOTAL Points_____ (Max. 50) ________ (Max 100) Personal Contribution criterion deleted because the planning committee felt it was not possible to evaluate
Oral Presentation Judging Criteria CategoryMax Possible INTRODUCTION The research question/hypothesis was clearly stated The goals and specific objectives were presented The project had sufficient, supporting background 20 METHODS & RESULTS The methods were clearly outlined/explained The presenter acknowledged limitations to the study The results were clearly explained and significant results were highlighted 20 CONCLUSIONS A review/summary of the project was presented The significance of the results was discussed The applicability of the results was discussed 20 PRESENTATION STYLE Presentation aids were clear and readable Presentation was well-structured and logical Presentation fit into the allotted time The student seemed knowledgeable The student exhibited appropriate voice projection, eye contact, confidence, and reliance on notes The student responded well to questions from the audience 40 Total Score100
Manuscript Reviews 127 student abstracts 99 student manuscripts uploaded Very tight scheduleSubmission deadline April 2 to review deadline April 9 (missed) Structural Dynamics had heavy review burdendifficulty completing Structures TC reviewersvery prompt (Thank you!!!) – Most 3 reviews, some 2 – Subcommittee organization very helpful in completing process Structural Dynamics31 MDO17 Structures14 Materials12 ASC7 NDA7 Wind Energy Technology5 GSF3 Design Engineering3 Total99 Mike Hyer Mary Mahler Michael Enright Marc Schultz Maenghyo Cho Stan Smeltzer Moshe Domb Mike Ross Eric Lundgren Michael Wolff Johanne Heald Anthony Palazotto Lisa Hardaway Jeanette Domber Joe Hackel John Wang Mark Sensmeier Harry Hiltonwilling but recused
Finalists 8 students invited to present at Tuesday evening judging session – 6 Finalists Eligible for Jefferson Gobletgood diversity: 1 each from Structures (composites) Wind Energy Technology ASC (Adaptive Structures Conf.) (composites) Structural Dynamics MDO GSF – 2 composites papers in 6 finalists eligible for ASC (Amer. Soc. Comp.) award – Next 2 Structures manuscripts eligible for Structures TC awards but not Jefferson Goblet or ASC award
Observations At Fall planning meeting each TC/conference decided to review its own manuscripts to ensure technical expertise of reviewersaccepting inevitable variation and potential conflict of interest – In the end some TCs felt each TC should have a finalistneed more than 6 – Structural Dynamics had heavy review burden Personal Opinion: Tuesday evening judging session is very difficult to manage, conflicts with all TC meetings, and is unfair to students – Intractable if additional awards added – I dont know best solution but LRP really needs to address and revise process ASC and ASC need to get together and resolve their acronym conflict Ball provided excellent supporthad to rearrange assignments for some papers initially assigned 3 Ball reviewers