1. SDM Student Paper Competition
SciTech 2015
SDM Student Paper Competition
Update to Structures Technical Committee
Dawn Phillips (Student Paper Chair)
September 11, 2014

2. SDM Student Paper Competition
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:
Regular technical session
“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

3. New Procedure For SciTech 2015
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

4. Student Presentations
Two options – final choice depended on decision about awards presentation
Awards presented at SDM awards lunch on Thursday – judge in Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday sessions
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!)

5. This many to session/judge without semi-final round.
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 TC
Judges
Abstracts Submitted
Abstracts Accepted
% Accepted
Semi-Finalists
% of Submitted
% of Accepted
ASC 7 10 11
110% 5
50%
45% DE 2
100% 1
MAT 8 18 16
89%
39%
44%
MDO 9
82% 6
55%
67%
NDA
SCS 3
33% SD 20
90%
STR 17
59%
SUR 4
Total 91 86
95% 47
52%
Pretty Close!
This many to session/judge without semi-final round.
This many instead!

6. Conference Sessions 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

7. Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition.
Remaining Tasks
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:
Core group of judges who can hit all 15 papers
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
So far, so good.
Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition.

8. Back-up

9. SciTech 2015 Master Schedule
2/5/2014
Call for papers finalized
3/17/2014
Abstract website open
5/15/2014
Deadline proposal submission for special and panel sessions
6/2/2014
Abstract website closed
6/25/2014
Student abstract judging for semi-finalists complete
7/7/2014
Student semi-finalists delivered to TC Reps
7/10/2014
Abstract review complete (cut-off score established, sessioning begins)
7/29/2014
All sessioning complete (student deconflicting completed 7/22)
8/8/2014
Deconflict report complete
8/22/2014
Acceptance/rejection letters sent
10/1/2014
Manuscript submission website opens
10/15/2014
All keynote speakers identified
11/3/2014
Student manuscripts due, judging round 2 begins
11/14/2014
Student judging round 2 complete, includes cross-TC judging
12/1/2014
Manuscript submission website closes
12/8/2014
Student finalists notified
1/5-9/2015
SciTech 2015, Orlando, FL

10. Abstract Judging Criteria
Criterion
Judge’s Score
Weight
Weighted Score
Originality
(max 10 pts)
1.75
17.5
Technical Content and Quality
3.5 35
Relevance of Contribution
1.0 10
Organization and Clarity
Potential to be a Good Paper
2.0 20
Total 50 --
100

11. Manuscript Judging Criteria
Plan to use same as previous years:
Option: use 15-pt scale for wider/clearer spread of scores?
Criterion
Judge’s Score
Weight
Weighted Score
Originality
(max 10 pts)
2.5 25
Technical Content and Quality
3.5 35
Relevance of Contribution
1.5 15
Organization and Clarity
Total 40 --
100

12. Presentation Judging Criteria
Plan to use same as previous years:
Criterion
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
100

13. Comparison to Previous YearsTC
2012
2013
2014*
2015
Uploaded
Accepted
To Judge
ASC 7 12 1 11 5 DE 3 2
MAT 15 4 16
MDO 17 6 9
NDA
SCS (GSF) SD 31 13 18
STR 14 10
SUR
Wind Energy --
Total 99 96 41 86 47
Finalists 6†
* First year of transition to SciTech
† Additional STR finalists identified and judged separately

14. 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