Originally suggested by the AGU Executive Committee of 1960 the Fellows program was established in 1962 to recognize AGU members who have made exceptional contributions to Earth and space sciences as valued by their peers and vetted by a committee of Fellows. The Fellows program serves to meet the need of identifying authorities who could advise, upon request, the various government agencies and other organizations outside the Earth and space sciences. In addition, the program aims to motivate members to achieve excellence in research and thereby advance the Earth and space sciences. The first class of AGU Fellows was announced in December 1962.

Nominees must demonstrate scientific eminence in the Earth and space sciences through achievements in research, as demonstrated by one or more of the following:

• breakthrough or discovery
• innovation in disciplinary science, cross-disciplinary science, instrument, data set, or methods development
• sustained scientific impact

Nominees are also expected to have shown exemplary leadership in following and promulgating AGU values. This leadership may include but is not limited to fostering equity, integrity, diversity, and open science; mentoring; public engagement and communication.

• AGU staff screen all nominations for eligibility and compliance. Ineligible and/or noncompliant nominations will be returned to nominators without review.


• Eligible nominations are first reviewed by the Section Fellows Review Committees. Each Section may forward up to 0.2 percent of their primary membership to the final selection committee (Union Fellows Committee) for review. AGU provides all Section Review Committees with the number of candidates they may forward to the Union Fellows Committee each year.


• The Union Fellows Committee reviews all nominations forwarded by the Sections, meeting multiple times to vote on and finalize each year's Class of Fellows. In order to be elected, each candidate must receive a majority of the Union Fellows Committee votes.

• Candidates are evaluated on the impact of their scientific contributions and relevance to the primary criteria for election.


• Review committees also take leadership, service, and alignment with AGU values into consideration after relevance to the primary criteria has been demonstrated.

Leadership is not a criterion for election. The primary criteria for election revolves around scientific merit and is therefore weighted more heavily than leadership capabilities. Review committees; however, are instructed to take both into consideration. In instances where one candidate has demonstrated scientific excellence and leadership capabilities and another has only demonstrated scientific excellence, review committees will typically advance the candidate who demonstrates both.

For more information on criteria, refer to the Union Fellows overview tab.

The number of fellows elected in each annual class shall not exceed 0.1% of the total membership at the end of the year preceding installation of that class, as stated in AGU's bylaws. In other words, the number of Fellows elected each year will vary based on the preceding year's membership numbers.

For example, if AGU's total membership number was 62,000 in the preceding year, AGU would elect 62 Fellows. If the membership number is 54,000 in the preceding year, AGU would elect 54 Fellows.

No. Every Section is able to forward up to 0.2 percent of their primary membership number to the final selection committee (Union Fellows Committee) for consideration each year. The final selection committee is only guaranteed to review the nominations; they are under no obligation to elect a set number from each Section. The final selection committee elects the best candidates overall, regardless of Section affiliation. That said, the committee does attempt to ensure that each new Class of Fellows is balanced.

All ethical/conduct-related concerns are referred directly to AGU's Ethics Committee Chair. The Ethics Committee then conducts an investigation into the allegations. Depending on the findings, appropriate actions are taken and may include nominations being pulled from consideration and/or reviewers being removed from committee service. Please review AGU's guidelines for scientific integrity and professional ethics for more information.

Middle- or senior-career scientists who have been active AGU members for the past three consecutive years, and are in compliance with our Honors Conflict of Interest policy.

Yes. Nominees must be active AGU members for (at least) the three consecutive years leading up to the year in which they are nominated.

No. Self-nominations are not permitted.

The Honors and Recognition Committee strongly recommends against nominees being made aware of their nomination. That said, the committee recognizes that it can be very difficult to construct a good nomination without the involvement of the nominee. Nominee's awareness of their nomination is discretionary; it is up to each nominator whether or not they include the nominee in the process.

Yes. Nominators and co-nominators must be active AGU members at the time of nomination submission.

All active AGU members, regardless of career stage, who are in compliance with our Honors Conflict of Interest policy.

No.

While there is no rule prohibiting close collaborators from nominating their colleagues, the Union Fellows Committee recommends that nomination packages be submitted by people who can provide an “arm’s length” review of the nominee’s scientific contributions and impact. If this is not possible because the field is very small (or for a similar reason), the nominator should briefly explain this in the nomination letter.

Yes. One primary nominator and one co-nominator are allowed per nomination. AGU reserves the right to reject, without review, nominations that list more than two signatories on the nomination letter.

No. Co-nominators simply sign the nomination letter along with the primary nominator. Letter of support writers submit separate (2-page) letters of support.

• Successful nomination packages often demonstrate high levels of coordination between the nomination letter and letters of support with the nomination letter focusing on the main contributions of the nominee and highlighting the importance of their work. Supporting letters would then delve into the topics highlighted in the nomination letter in greater detail.


• Be explicit about which of the primary criteria the candidate has been nominated for.


• Write for the non-specialist and avoid use of acronyms and jargon. Members of the Section review committee(s) may fully understand the specifics of the nominee’s science/scientific contributions, but the final selection committee is comprised of members who may or may not have expertise in the nominee’s field.


• Focus on the broader significance of the nominee’s contributions and the impact of their work.


• If citation numbers are provided, provide context for them (i.e., how do the numbers compare to others in the subdiscipline at a similar career stage?)


• If mentoring is listed as an important way in which the nominee reflects AGU values, it would be helpful to highlight the students/postdocs, and what they are doing now.


• Please be sure to correctly identify collaborations or connections (i.e., supervisor/supervisee) between the nominator or letter writers and nominee.

• The nomination letter should be written on letterhead and include the nominator’s name, title, institution, and contact information.


• The nomination letter should not exceed 2 pages in length. AGU will remove any pages in excess of the limit (2 pages) prior to sharing with the review committee(s).


• The nomination letter should be written using an appropriate font size (e.g., Times New Roman, size 12). If the selected font size is too small, the nomination may be returned to the nominator without review.


• The nomination letter should be submitted as an unencrypted, watermark-free PDF.

Each nomination package can be submitted to up to four Section Fellows Committees for review. Please ensure that the nominee's work is relevant to each of the Section's it is submitted to.

No.

Successful packages often include letters of support from non-collaborators of the nominee (i.e., from people who can provide an “arm’s length” review of the nominee’s scientific contributions). If this is not possible because the field is very small, it would be helpful if the letter briefly explains this.

• Letters of Support should provide evidence for and expand upon the main contributions of the nominee as listed in the nomination letter. Successful nominations often demonstrate a high level of coordination between the nomination letter and all 3 letters of support (e.g., nomination letter highlights three significant scientific contributions of the nominee; each supporting letter focuses on one of the three contributions in greater detail).


• Coordinate with the nominator. Make reference to the primary criteria that the candidate has been nominated for.


• Avoid repetition between letters of support and nomination letter.


• Write for the non-specialist and avoid use of acronyms and jargon. Members of the Section review committee(s) may fully understand the specifics of the nominee’s science/scientific contributions, but the final selection committee is comprised of members who may or may not have expertise in the nominee’s field.


• Focus on the broader significance of the nominee’s contributions and the impact of their work.


• If citation numbers are provided, provide context for them (i.e., how do the numbers compare to others in the subdiscipline at a similar career stage?).


• If mentoring is listed as an important way in which the nominee reflects AGU values, it would be helpful to highlight the students/postdocs, and what they are doing now.
• Please be sure to correctly identify collaborations or connections (i.e., supervisor/supervisee) between the nominator or letter writers and nominee.

No. Only one signature is permitted per letter of support.

• The nomination letter should be written on letterhead and include the nominator’s name, title, institution, and contact information.


• The nomination letter should not exceed 2 pages in length. AGU will remove any pages in excess of the limit (2 pages) prior to sharing with the review committee(s).


• The nomination letter should be written using an appropriate font size (e.g., Times New Roman, size 12). If the selected font size is too small, the nomination may be returned to the nominator without review.


• The nomination letter should be submitted as an unencrypted, watermark-free PDF.

• While not required, the Honors and Recognition Committee recommends listing relevant honors/accolades.


• Include/highlight relevant positions/experiences.


• Make sure the information listed aligns with what has been discussed in the nomination and supporting letters.

• Include papers that are relevant to the contributions being highlighted in the nomination and support letters.


• The Union Fellows Committee recommends defining the role of the nominee in cases where important papers have been coauthored (unless the coauthor is a student or post-doc of the nominee).


• The Union Fellows Committee recommends highlighting coauthors that were/are advisees (e.g., students or post-docs) of the nominee.