AGU utilizes a two-step nomination and review process to enhance the accessibility and equity of the Union Medals, Awards, and Prizes Program.
Round-one Review
First-round nomination packages consist of a statement of intent and a statement of nominee alignment with AGU values. Neither statement should exceed 400 words in length or include individually identifying information about the nominee. For an example of how to de-identify a person's bio, click here.
Items should be submitted through the nomination portal.
- Statement of Intent
- Statement of Nominee Alignment with AGU Values
The statement should highlight those characteristics that make the nominee a good match for the award, specifically as they relate to the award’s primary criteria/scope.
The statement should outline the degree to which the nominee aligns with AGU values.
First-round nomination packages are reviewed anonymously by the selection committee. Nominators whose nominee is moved to the second round of review will be asked to submit additional materials.
During the first round of review, nominees are evaluated based on their alignment with the primary criteria/scope of the award and their alignment with AGU values. The identities of nominees are not shared with the selection committee at this stage to promote fair scoring and reduce bias during the evaluation process.
Round-two Review
During the second round of review, the selection committee uses a standard rubric to evaluate the nominee’s alignment with the award’s primary criteria and AGU , as well as the quality of the nomination package.
Second-round nomination materials should be submitted as unencrypted, watermark-free PDFs through the nomination portal. A complete round-two nomination package consists of the following items (note that letterhead is preferred):
- Nomination Letter
- Supporting Files
- Supporter Questionnaire
A nomination letter containing the nominator’s name, title, institution, and contact information detailing how the nominee meets the selection criteria.
Submitter will be asked to include relevant links including their CV, ORCID, and persistent identifier for relevant Open Science work.
Nominator’s will task three supporters with answering a questionnaire about the nominee’s alignment to the criteria for the award. Nominators will do this in the nomination portal.
The selection committee’s final awardee recommendation reports are given to the Council Leadership Team (CLT) to certify the evaluation process.
AGU Standard Rubric
Selection committees use the following rubric to evaluate nomination packages during the second stage of the nomination process.
|
|
||||
|
Excellent 5 |
Good 4 |
Average 3 |
Below average 2 |
Poor 1 |
|
Nominee meets 100% of the criteria and/or award scope for this opportunity |
Nominee meets at least 75% of the criteria and/or award scope for this opportunity |
Nominee meets at least 50% of the criteria and/or award scope for this opportunity |
Nominee meets at least 25% of the criteria and/or award scope for this opportunity |
Nominee meets less than 25% of the criteria and/or award scope for this opportunity |
|
|
||||
|
Excellent 5 |
Good 4 |
Average 3 |
Below average 2 |
Poor 1 |
|
Nomination adequately demonstrates candidate alignment with 5 or more of AGU’s values |
Nomination adequately demonstrates candidate alignment with 4 of AGU’s values |
Nomination adequately demonstrates candidate alignment with 3 of AGU’s values |
Nomination adequately demonstrates candidate alignment with at least one of AGU’s values |
Nomination fails to demonstrate adequate alignment with AGU values |
|
|
||||
|
Excellent 5 |
Good 4 |
Average 3 |
Below average 2 |
Poor 1 |
|
Nomination package is very well organized and demonstrates a high level of coordination between the nomination letter and additional supporting materials |
Nomination package is well organized and demonstrates coordination between the nomination letter and additional supporting materials |
Nomination package is organized and demonstrates partial coordination between nomination letter and additional supporting materials |
Nomination package is somewhat disorganized and does not demonstrate adequate coordination between nomination letter and additional supporting materials |
Nomination package is disorganized, lacking in specificity, and/or fails to demonstrate coordination between nomination letter and additional supporting materials |
2024 Review Timeline
- 17 January: Nomination period opens
- 1 March: Nomination period closes
- 1 -30 April: Selection committees review nominations
- 6 May: Nominators notified about whether their nominee will move forward to the second round
- 3 June: Submission period closes
- 10 June: Selection committees given access to nomination packages
- 11 June -19 July: Selection committees review nomination packages
- 24 July: Recommendation reports due to Council Leadership Team (CLT)
- 15 August: CLT meets to certify the evaluation process conducted by the selection committees
- TBD September: 2024 Union medal, award, and prize recipients announced
- 11 December: AGU Honors Ceremony 2024