APS Fellowship Nomination and Selection Committee Guideline

Unit Executive Committee Responsibilities

Canvassing and Promotion

At the end of the calendar year, APS staff will begin to distribute a report of the carryover nominations that are still active and eligible to the related unit executive committees. Executive committee members should review the existing nomination pool, and canvass for a diverse pool of nominees, send promotional messages via the unit’s communication channels, and disseminate through non-APS media as needed (e.g., other societies, special interest groups). Unit officers can request a current listing of unit members, with fellowship status, by emailing Holly Croft, croft@aps.org.

If officers would like to submit a nomination themselves, please reference the conflict of interest definition and examples below so as not to create potential conflicts for the selection process.

Forming Selection Committees

Selection committees are invited and appointed by the APS or a related APS unit or committee. The committee composition varies by award and is usually defined in the relevant unit’s bylaws. In January, staff will ask each unit’s executive committee to invite new and and confirm continuing selection committees members for their unit’s fellowship selection committee. If committee selections are dependent on elections and newly filled positions, continuing committee members should be confirmed as soon as possible with staff and begin their review of carryover nominations.

Rubrics (Optional - Suggested Procedures)

In accordance with the Guidelines for Promoting Equity in Awarding APS Prizes, Awards, and Fellowships (2014), each unit’s executive committee should consider using fellowship rubrics—specific criteria, and how the criteria should be considered when reviewing the nomination materials.

The Chair’s Role on the Selection Committee

The Selection Committee Chair shall be responsible for insuring the review and selection process is completed on time and in accordance with APS guidelines. The Chair shall facilitate and document the review and selection process, but should not score or vote on nominees unless needed as a tiebreaker. The Chair may take part in discussion of the nominees, but should be mindful of their primary role of facilitator.

Scheduling Selection Committee Calls

APS suggests the committee chair schedule at least three calls, an orientation call, a selection call, and a second optional selection call if further deliberation is needed. The committee calls will be conducted via conference or video call. Email fellowship@aps.org, subject line: Conference Call Request, and provide the name of the selection committee, date and time of the call(s), if video or phone only is preferred, and staff will provide access information to the committee members.

Orientation Call: The chair of the selection committee should convene committee members to review and agree upon a timeline and procedures for the selection process. If needed, APS staff can schedule an optional training webinar for all unit fellowship selection committee members to review how to navigate FluidReview, Google Drive, and answer any questions regarding procedures.

Selection Committee Instructions & Orientation

Creating a Reviewer Account in FluidReview

There is a one-time reviewer account set-up. To create a reviewer account, log-in to the APS Fellowship Nomination and Review website (FluidReview) with your APS website username and password, then close out the browser window. You do not need to fill out any information. Notify Honors staff (fellowship@aps.org) that you have logged-in and If you are a chair or a regular member, APS staff they will grant you access to your assigned nominations.

Optional - Suggested Timeline

Fall-presentation Fellowship (e.g. Division of Plasma Physics, Division of Fluid Dynamics)

December 1 - Online nomination system opens
January 1 - Unit has reviewed and approved the selection committee criteria, existing nominee pool (if applicable) and has begun canvassing and promotion, and has invited and confirmed all selection committee members.
March 1 - Selection Committee Orientation Deadline. The Selection Committee Chair should insure that the committee has confirmed their timeline and process, everyone had logged-in and made an initial review of the nomination pool, and held an orientation call, and continued canvassing and promotion efforts started by the executive committee, if applicable.
March 30 - Nomination Deadline. After the nomination deadline, staff will post summary reports of complete nominations eligible for review to the selection committees Google Drive folder. Selection committee members should begin their review referencing the summary report and the complete nomination packages in FluidReview.
May 1 - Scoring deadline (if using). All committee members should have calculated their scores using the nomination summary spreadsheet, then entered and submitted their final scores into FluidReview. After the scoring deadline, staff will post the score report ordered from highest to lowest scoring nomination for the committees review in their Google Drive folder.
May 25 - Selection deadline. Selection committee should have held their selection call(s) and reached a final decision.
June 1 - Chair report due. The Selection Committee Chair should complete the chair’s report template in the Google Drive folder and inform APS Honors staff at fellowship@aps.org when it is final. Information regarding canvassing done by unit officers and/or committees may need to be gathered prior to completing the form.

Spring-presentation Fellowship (e.g. March and April Meetings, Division of Laser Science, Division of Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics)

December 1 - Online nomination system opens
January 1 - Unit has reviewed and approved the selection committee criteria, existing nominee pool (if applicable) and has begun canvassing and promotion, and has invited and confirmed all selection committee members.
May 1 - Selection Committee Orientation Deadline. The Selection Committee Chair should insure that the committee has confirmed their timeline and process, everyone had logged-in and made an initial review of the nomination pool, and held an orientation call, and continued canvassing and promotion efforts started by the executive committee, if applicable.
June 1 - Nomination Deadline. After the nomination deadline, staff will post summary reports of complete nominations eligible for review to the selection committees Google Drive folder. Selection committee members should begin their review referencing the summary report and the complete nomination packages in FluidReview.
June 29 - Scoring deadline (if using). All committee members should have calculated their scores using the nomination summary spreadsheet, then entered and submitted their final scores into FluidReview. After the scoring deadline, staff will post the score report ordered from highest to lowest scoring nomination for the committees review in their Google Drive folder.
July 20 - Selection deadline. Selection committee should have held their selection call(s) and reached a final decision.
August 1 - Chair report due. The Selection Committee Chair should complete the chair’s report template in the Google Drive folder and inform APS Honors staff at fellowship@aps.org when it is final.

Optional - Suggested Scoring Procedure

The optional suggested scoring procedure is intended to calibrate and focus the discussion of nominees, not replace or automate it. This is the process successfully used each year by the APS Medal and Prize Committee and the Apker Award Selection Committee, and could be easily applied to fellowship. It is not mandatory if your unit already has a system in place that works well.

After the nomination deadline passes, committee members will receive an email with two links: (1) access to nominations and scoring in FluidReview and (2) access to a google Drive folder containing the nomination summary spreadsheet, 3) unconscious bias resouces, and 4) the units fellowship rubrics, if applicable.

Using FluidReview to Score

  1. Go to FluidReview and log in with your APS website username and password.
  2. On the authorization page, click “Allow”.
  3. Click the link Review Nominations.
  4. You will see list of nominations assigned to you for review. If you are reviewing for more than one prize or award, use the dropdown list in the upper-right corner labeled "Award:" to view each list of nominations.
  5. Rate each nomination from 1 to 5; 1 is least recommended, 5 is most recommended to receive the prize or award.
  6. Use the entire range to distribute the scores so the total of your scores equal three times the number of nominations scored. E.g. if you score 10 nominations, the sum of the ten scores should equal 30. We recommend downloading the nominee summary spreadsheet and using it to calculate your total score before entering your final scores into FluidReview.
  7. If you believe you have a conflict of interest with a nominee, click on the name of the nominee and then click "report issue/conflict" button in the upper right corner.
  8. Located in the lower left corner, use the "Save" button often, and use the "Submit" button after you have completed all nominations in your list.
  9. Please save a backup copy of your scores by using the "download my rankings" button.

After the scoring deadline, APS staff will compile the scores, sort the nominations from highest to lowest average score, and post them to Google Drive. The chair will suggest a “cut-score” to the committee, narrowing consideration to only the higher scoring nominations. The committee will have three days to review the cut-score and send the chair any additional nominations who scored below the cut-score that they think merit serious consideration for fellowship.

After finalizing the discussion list, the chair will assign each committee member as primary reviewer on a subset of nominations. The primary reviewer should be prepared to briefly summarize the nomination on the committee selection call before discussion. Primary reviewer assignments may be based loosely on area of physics, but not necessarily. It is more important for the primary reviewer to have carefully reviewed the nomination in order to provide a synopsis on the selection call.

If a clear consensus is not reached on the selection call after discussion of the nominations, final scoring or voting may help with the decision. FluidReview is set-up for one round of scoring, so any final scores should be taken outside of the system.

Conflicts of Interest

The following connections between selection committee members and nominees are conflicts of interest:

  • Residing at the same institution within the past four years,
  • Collaborations published within the past four years,
  • Financial via direct chain of command and/or participation in tenure, promotion, salary or forms of support by either party,
  • Member of the same center or sharing any funding contract,
  • Relationship due to immediate blood relation, current or prior marriage or civil union,
  • Current or prior students, post-docs, advisees, and advisors, or
  • Sponsor, co-sponsor, or participant in the nomination package.

Before scoring nominations, committee members should review the list of nominees and disclose to the committee chair any potential conflicts of interest. The chair is responsible for documenting conflicts of interest on the nominee spreadsheet in the committee’s Google Drive folder, and in the chair’s report.

If the chair has a conflict, they should disclose it to the committee. A new chair may need to be identified, depending on the level of conflict. The committee minus the chair will vote to determine if the chair must be replaced due to conflict, or if recusal is sufficient.

Committee members and chairs with conflicts must recuse themselves from scoring and discussion of the person with whom they have a conflict. Specifically, they cannot be on the conference call while that person is discussed.

Confidentiality and Information Security

The committee's deliberations are confidential. All scoring and discussion of nominees shall only be conducted via conference calls or posting comments into Google Drive or FluidReview. No scores, or discussion of nominations, shall be conducted via email. Names of nominees considered but not selected should never be included in chair reports. This is for information security purposes, and to protect APS and its volunteers from possible legal action and liability.

The recommended recipients are not official until approved by council, and the recipient has been notified. Please do not disclose the recipients until APS has made a public announcement.

If you have any questions about the review process, please contact APS Honors Staff at (fellowship@aps.org).

Reporting

The chair of the selection committee shall complete the chair’s report (Google Sheet) which includes which nominees are recommended for fellowship, information about canvassing and promotion, conflict of interest disclosure, and the committee’s selection process. This report should be shared with the respective unit executive committee (if applicable) before sending it to the APS Honors Staff at Fellowship@aps.org. Staff will submit the reports to The APS Fellowship Committee then the APS Council of Representatives for review and election.