1. SDM 2012 Student Paper Awards
Rob Taylor
Structures TC Meeting
4/24/2012

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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

5. 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
3.5
________ (Max. 35)
3. Relevance of Contribution
1.5
________ (Max. 15)
4. Organization and Clarity
______ (Max .10)
TOTAL Points
_____ (Max. 50)
________ (Max 100)
Personal Contribution criterion deleted because the planning committee felt it was not possible to evaluate

6. Oral Presentation Judging Criteria
Category
Max 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
CONCLUSIONS
A review/summary of the project was presented
The significance of the results was discussed
The applicability of the results was discussed
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 Score
100

7. Manuscript Reviews 127 student abstracts
99 student manuscripts uploaded
Very tight schedule—Submission deadline April 2 to review deadline April 9 (missed)
Structural Dynamics had heavy review burden—difficulty completing
Structures TC reviewers—very prompt (Thank you!!!)
Most 3 reviews, some 2
Subcommittee organization very helpful in completing process
Structural Dynamics 31
MDO 17
Structures 14
Materials 12
ASC 7
NDA
Wind Energy Technology 5
GSF 3
Design Engineering
Total 99
Mike Hyer
Moshe Domb
Lisa Hardaway
Mary Mahler
Mike Ross
Jeanette Domber
Michael Enright
Eric Lundgren
Joe Hackel
Marc Schultz
Michael Wolff
John Wang
Maenghyo Cho
Johanne Heald
Mark Sensmeier
Stan Smeltzer
Anthony Palazotto
Harry Hilton—willing but recused

8. Finalists
8 students invited to present at Tuesday evening judging session
6 Finalists Eligible for Jefferson Goblet—good 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

9. Observations
At Fall planning meeting each TC/conference decided to review its own manuscripts to ensure technical expertise of reviewers—accepting inevitable variation and potential conflict of interest
In the end some TC’s felt each TC should have a finalist—need 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 don’t 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 support—had to rearrange assignments for some papers initially assigned 3 Ball reviewers