Skip to main content

Trailblazing Ecology Publication

Trailblazing Ecology Publication (Old name: Outstanding Student Award)

Award Description 

  • The Student Section’s Trailblazing Ecology Publication award honors a student that publishes a paper of particular significance to the scientific community. Broadly, we select winners based on the citability, credibility and relevance of published research.

Eligibility

  • You must be a member of ESA and the Student Section.
  • You must be enrolled as a student (high school, undergraduate, Masters or Ph.D) or one year post-graduation.
  • You must be in good academic standing.
  • You must attend the Student Section Business Meeting & Trailblazing Student at ESA Award Ceremony and your attendance at other Student Section events is strongly encouraged. 
  • At the time of application, the paper must be published in a peer-reviewed journal.
  • Preference will be given to applicants who identify as an underrepresented minority.

Application Questions

  • A CV from the nominee
  • A copy of the paper
  • A brief letter describing the impact of the paper on the field (300 words or less)
  • A letter of support from the major professor that confirms the nominee’s eligibility for the award

Selection Criteria

  • Applications will be reviewed by an awards committee consisting of students and appointed by the officers of the Student Section. The award honors students that publish papers of particular significance to the scientific community. We select winners based on the citability, credibility and relevance of published research. To prevent any biases (especially sub-conscious) all applicant names, addresses, and any other personal information will be removed prior to distribution to judges. The applications are evaluated on the following criteria: 
  • Paper’s contribution to the field: Paper is published in a recognized and high impact peer-reviewed journal. It is well written, and provides valuable, broadly applicable insights to the field of ecology.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The paper is published in a high impact journal and the applicant provides specific details, such as topics, concepts, and issues, and clearly explains how these details contribute to our knowledge/understanding of ecology.
      • 4: The paper is published in a medium to high impact journal and the applicant provides specific details, such as topics, concepts, and issues, but fails to clearly explain how these details contribute to our knowledge/understanding of ecology.
      • 3: The paper is published in a medium impact journal and the applicant provides a clear but general explanation of how their research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field. 
      • 2: The paper is published in a low to medium impact journal and the applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of how their research contributes to the existing body of knowledge in the field. 
      • 1: The paper is published in a low impact journal and the applicant does not mention the importance of their research with regard to its contribution to our knowledge/understanding of ecology.
  • Paper’s originality: Paper is novel and engaging for all ecologists, regardless of subdiscipline.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, that makes their research BOTH novel and engaging to ecologists in a diversity of subdisciplines.
      • 4: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, that makes their research EITHER novel OR engaging to ecologists in a diversity of subdisciplines.
      • 3: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research but fails to clearly explain how these details contribute to the novelty and/or importance of their research.
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of the novelty and/or importance of their research.
      • 1: The applicant does not mention how their research is novel and engaging to ecologists in a diversity of subdisciplines.
  • Study design: The study design elegantly addresses the paper’s question and tests. hypotheses. Details are explained clearly and replicability seems possible.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant has clear and transparent methodology presented in the manuscript.
      • 3: Some details of the methods are unclear.
      • 1: Methodological details are unclear and may be difficult to repeat as written.
  • Broader impact: The paper has strong applications to real world environmental problems or issues.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, such as experiments, observations, and/or results, and clearly explains how these aspects address real-world environmental problems or issues
      • 4: The applicant describes specific aspects of their research, such as experiments, observations, and/or results, but fails to clearly explains how these aspects address real-world environmental problems or issues
      • 3: The applicant provides a clear but general explanation of how their research addresses real-world environmental problems or issues
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and general explanation of how their research addresses real-world environmental problems or issues
      • 1: The applicant does not mention how their research addresses real-world environmental problems or issues.
  • Letter of support: The applicant should provide a strong letter of support from a collaborator, advisor, or another professional ecologist, that describes: 1) the importance of their paper, 2) their paper’s impact on the field of ecology, 3) their paper’s novelty, and 4) the broad implications of their research.  
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant has a strong letter of support that addresses all four requirements previously mentioned in the criteria description.
      • 4: The applicant has a strong letter of support that addresses three of the four requirements previously mentioned in the criteria description. 
      • 3: The applicant has a strong letter of support that addresses two of the four requirements previously mentioned in the criteria description. 
      • 2: The applicant has a strong letter of support that addresses one of the four requirements previously mentioned in the criteria description. 
      • 1: The applicant has a strong letter of support that addresses none of the four requirements previously mentioned in the criteria description. 
  • Diversity and Inclusion: The applicant should describe the ways in which their current or future research promotes diversity and inclusion, with regards to culture, ethnicity, gender identity or expression, national origin, physical or mental difference, politics, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and/or subculture, as described in ESA’s Diversity Statement. The diversity of geographic locations and/or ecology subdisciplines does NOT meet the diversity and inclusion criteria.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led- initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future and clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
      • 4: The applicant provides specific examples (e.g. partnering organizations, collaborators, and/or applicant led-initiatives/programs) of things they have done or plan to do in the future but fails to clearly explain how these examples promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology
      • 3: The applicant provides a clear but generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology. 
      • 2: The applicant provides an unclear and generic example work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
      • 1: The applicant does not mention the work they have done or plan to do in the future to promote diversity and inclusion within the field of ecology.
  • Optional Uploads & Web Links: Bonus creativity points will be given to applicants who including optional uploads and/or links that illustrate: 1) the applicant’s work, 2) the impact and/or significance of their work, and/or 3) address any of the application questions in a creative/non-traditional way. Examples: videos that depict your work/research, social media sites used to educate the public, infographics created during a project, creative websites used to explain your work.
    • Rating Criteria:
      • 5: Optional uploads and/or web links are original, interesting, and engaging/interactive. Applicant shows exceptional creativity.
      • 3: Optional uploads and/or web links are original and interesting. Applicant shows some creativity
      • 1: Optional uploads and/or web links has some creative elements, showing an attempt to be creative