SciTech 2015SDM Student Paper Competition

Update to Structures Technical Committee

Dawn Phillips (Student Paper Chair)September 11, 2014

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:

1. Regular technical session2. “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

SDM Student Paper Competition

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

New Procedure For SciTech 2015

Two options – final choice depended on decision about awards presentation1. Awards presented at SDM awards lunch on Thursday – judge in Monday, Tuesday,

Wednesday sessions2. 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 papersPlanning 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 peersBig change #5 – student winners will be given complimentary tickets to the awards lunch (bonus!)

Student Presentations

TC Judges Abstracts Submitted

Abstracts Accepted

% Accepted

Semi-Finalists

% of Submitted

% of Accepted

ASC 7 10 11 110% 5 50% 45%

DE 2 2 2 100% 1 50% 50%

MAT 8 18 16 89% 7 39% 44%

MDO 8 11 9 82% 6 55% 67%

NDA 6 6 6 100% 6 100% 100%

SCS 3 3 3 100% 1 33% 33%

SD 5 20 18 90% 9 45% 50%

STR 18 17 17 100% 10 59% 59%

SUR 4 4 4 100% 2 50% 50%

Total 91 86 95% 47 52% 55%

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 NDARoughly half from each TC selected as semi-finalists (none that were rejected by normal

review process)• Judges’ recommendations for special awards really helped

Pretty Close!This many to session/judge without semi-final round. This many instead!

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

Conference Sessions

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:

1. Core group of judges who can hit all 15 papers2. 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

Remaining Tasks

So far, so good.Desire is to effect positive and lasting change to the competition.

Back-up

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

Abstract Judging Criteria

Criterion Judge’s Score Weight Weighted Score

Originality (max 10 pts) 1.75 17.5

Technical Content and Quality (max 10 pts) 3.5 35

Relevance of Contribution (max 10 pts) 1.0 10

Organization and Clarity (max 10 pts) 1.75 17.5

Potential to be a Good Paper (max 10 pts) 2.0 20

Total 50 -- 100

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 (max 10 pts) 3.5 35

Relevance of Contribution (max 10 pts) 1.5 15

Organization and Clarity (max 10 pts) 2.5 25

Total 40 -- 100

Presentation Judging Criteria

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

20

CONCLUSIONS • A review/summary of the project was presented• The significance of the results was discussed• The applicability of the results was discussed

20

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

Plan to use same as previous years:

Comparison to Previous Years

TC2012 2013 2014* 2015

Uploaded Uploaded Uploaded Accepted To Judge

ASC 7 12 1 11 5

DE 3 3 0 2 1

MAT 12 15 4 16 7

MDO 17 15 6 9 6

NDA 7 16 5 6 6

SCS (GSF) 3 5 1 3 1

SD 31 13 12 18 9

STR 14 13 12 17 10

SUR 0 1 0 4 2

Wind Energy 5 3 -- -- --

Total 99 96 41 86 47

Finalists 6 6 6† -- 15

* First year of transition to SciTech† Additional STR finalists identified and judged separately

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