Presentation on theme: "SciTech 2015 SDM Student Paper Competition Update to Structures Technical Committee Dawn Phillips (Student Paper Chair) September 11, 2014."— Presentation transcript:
SciTech 2015 SDM Student Paper Competition Update to Structures Technical Committee Dawn Phillips (Student Paper Chair) September 11, 2014
For those who don’t know..... Five awards: Jefferson Goblet Structures - Lockheed Structures - Hilton Composites NDA (new this year!!) Preceding years procedure: All accepted student final manuscripts collected, distributed, judged within 7 days (±) after manuscript deadline closed Finalists required to present papers twice: 1.Regular technical session 2.“Judging” session on Sunday night or Tuesday night –Sunday night presented travel difficulties –Tuesday night meant some students had already presented their paper once, some hadn’t Approximately 6 finalists selected for 4 awards SDM Student Paper Competition
Big task! – make sure presentations are judged in their regular sessions at SciTech! Solution – have three rounds of judging: Semi-finalists selected based on extended abstracts (three judges per abstract) Finalists selected based on final manuscripts Winners selected based on manuscript scores and at-conference presentations Big change #1 – semi-final round changed sessioning work load on TC Reps Solicited feedback from organizing committee, worked with John K. (SDM Technical Chair) to develop schedule Student manuscripts required to be submitted one month earlier than regular conference deadline (ScholarOne will be locked at 5:01pm EST on November 3, 2014) Big change #2 – judges have more time and fewer manuscripts to read New Procedure For SciTech 2015
Two options – final choice depended on decision about awards presentation 1.Awards presented at SDM awards lunch on Thursday – judge in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday sessions 2.Awards presented at special ceremony (or welcome reception) on Tuesday evening – judge all finalists in two special sessions on Monday (still requires students to present twice, but circumstances different) Big change #3 – more finalists can be selected, bigger pool of papers Planning to select 15 finalists for 5 awards Worked with John K. to persuade AIAA to give student awards at SDM awards lunch (decision finally made on July 1) Big change #4 – student presentations will be judged in their regular technical sessions among their peers Big change #5 – student winners will be given complimentary tickets to the awards lunch (bonus!) Student Presentations
TCJudges Abstracts Submitted Abstracts Accepted % Accepted Semi- Finalists % of Submitted % of Accepted ASC71011110%550%45% DE222100%150% MAT8181689%739%44% MDO811982%655%67% NDA666100%6 SCS333100%133% SD5201890%945%50% STR1817 100%1059% SUR444100%250% Total918695%4752%55% Abstract Statistics 91 student abstracts submitted – semi-final judging concurrent with abstract reviews Cut-off score of 75 –Pretty even scoring across TCs –Selectively stretched cut-off to 70 to include SUR and extra papers from STR and NDA Roughly half from each TC selected as semi-finalists (none that were rejected by normal review process) Judges’ recommendations for special awards really helped Pretty Close!This many to session/judge without semi-final round.This many instead!
Sessioning worked beautifully! ALL 47 student semi-finalists were placed in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday sessions Entire conference program delivered to me to deconflict student papers –Contacted each TC Rep with individual requests to move papers (the response was awesome!) –Managed to get no more than two student papers overlapping at a time ▫Not very many occurrences ▫Used abstract scores as predictor to which abstracts will likely be finalists (NO instances where highest scoring abstracts overlap each other) Thought is that none of the 15 finalists will overlap. If they do, judges will only need to divide & conquer into two groups Conference Sessions
Finalist selection: All dates selected to work around holiday schedules! Manuscript judging (47 manuscripts) for finalist selection – November 3-14, 2014 –Will use 4-5 judges per paper – opportunity for cross-TC judging Finalists notified n.l.t. December 8, 2014 Finalists’ manuscript scores will be combined with presentation scores for winner selection At-conference presentation judging: Presentation judges will have to hop rooms! Will be a big job – need people who can dedicate to the task Don’t want conflicts with session chairs or presentation of own papers Likely have two types of judges: 1.Core group of judges who can hit all 15 papers 2.Extra judges who can tag-team accompanying the core group for a few papers Will want special STR and NDA representation since they have special awards Remaining Tasks So far, so good. Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition. So far, so good. Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition.
SciTech 2015 Master Schedule 2/5/2014Call for papers finalized 3/17/2014Abstract website open 5/15/2014Deadline proposal submission for special and panel sessions 6/2/2014Abstract website closed 6/25/2014Student abstract judging for semi-finalists complete 7/7/2014Student semi-finalists delivered to TC Reps 7/10/2014Abstract review complete (cut-off score established, sessioning begins) 7/29/2014All sessioning complete (student deconflicting completed 7/22) 8/8/2014Deconflict report complete 8/22/2014Acceptance/rejection letters sent 10/1/2014Manuscript submission website opens 10/15/2014All keynote speakers identified 11/3/2014Student manuscripts due, judging round 2 begins 11/14/2014Student judging round 2 complete, includes cross-TC judging 12/1/2014Manuscript submission website closes 12/8/2014Student finalists notified 1/5-9/2015SciTech 2015, Orlando, FL
Abstract Judging Criteria CriterionJudge’s ScoreWeightWeighted Score Originality(max 10 pts)1.7517.5 Technical Content and Quality(max 10 pts)3.535 Relevance of Contribution(max 10 pts)1.010 Organization and Clarity(max 10 pts)1.7517.5 Potential to be a Good Paper(max 10 pts)2.020 Total50--100
Manuscript Judging Criteria Plan to use same as previous years: Option: use 15-pt scale for wider/clearer spread of scores? CriterionJudge’s ScoreWeightWeighted Score Originality(max 10 pts)2.525 Technical Content and Quality(max 10 pts)3.535 Relevance of Contribution(max 10 pts)1.515 Organization and Clarity(max 10 pts)2.525 Total40--100
Presentation Judging Criteria CriterionMax 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 Total100 Plan to use same as previous years:
Comparison to Previous Years TC 201220132014*2015 Uploaded AcceptedTo Judge ASC7121115 DE33021 MAT12154167 MDO1715696 NDA716566 SCS (GSF)35131 SD311312189 STR1413121710 SUR01042 Wind Energy53-- Total9996418647 Finalists666†6† --15 * First year of transition to SciTech † Additional STR finalists identified and judged separately
Observations Some (not much, but some) confusion over new procedure Casualty of doing semi-final judging at same time as abstract reviews New ideas take time to catch on... The “pat on the back”: Structures TC incredibly responsive and cooperative Proactive about asking questions and getting clarification Recruited judges when requested Judges followed instructions