Awards

The Society for Open Reliable Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary biology (SORTEE) invites eligible candidates to apply for our Open Science in Practice award (open to graduate students and postdocs within 3 years of their degree) and our Best First Paper award. We encourage candidates to nominate themselves but we will also accept nominations from people familiar with the nominee’s work.

Please submit nominations by 1 June 2021 to Clint Kelly at kelly.clint@uqam.ca

 

Description of awards

 

1. Open Science in Practice

This award aims to recognize and reward researchers who have endeavoured to implement best practices in Open Science (OS) within their research workflow, thereby increasing the transparency and reproducibility of their research activities.

Three separate awards will be given: one for Masters students (current, or <12 months since degree conferred), one for PhD students (current, or <12 months since degree conferred), and one for postdoctoral research associates (< three years since doctoral degree conferred).

If the awardees are selected by the committee with lead time sufficient time, the awardees will each be invited to give a short (~15 minute) presentation at the inaugural SORTEE conference, to be held 12-14 July 2021. The awardees’ work will also be promoted by SORTEE via Twitter, and announced to other EEB societies (e.g. CSEE, ESA). In this inaugural year for SORTEE and its activities, we unfortunately do not have funds available for awards, and we may not be able to select the awardees with sufficient lead time to provide presentation slots at the conference.

All steps that are taken to improve the transparency and reproducibility of EEB research are valuable and appreciated, and achieving the “ideal” workflow in practice will, for many of us, be a life-long endeavour and learning experience! We therefore encourage all eligible researchers to apply, regardless of how far along this path you find yourself. For example, a graduate student or postdoc may not have implemented many or any OS best practices from the outset of their research career because they initially did not have access to the training and support necessary. Thus, their earlier work may be less transparent and reproducible than their later work. This is entirely expected, and should not discourage you from applying for this award.

 

Application materials:

(i) A letter (maximum 500 words) describing why you are deserving of this award, and referring to evidence and examples (accessible to adjudicators through URLs / DOIs) of how you have integrated OS best practices into your research workflow as a graduate student or postdoc.
(ii) An up-to-date CV.
(iii) A brief document (maximum 300 words) describing other elements of reproducibility or open science that you wish to have applied to your research, but were limited by financial constraints, access to certain resources, bureaucratic restrictions, or any other barrier.

 

Criteria:
The criteria for judging submissions are based on TOP journal guidelines modified for application to individual publications.

We emphasize that making publications Open Access is NOT a criterion for the awards, as this typically requires access to substantial funds. However, making a penultimate version of an officially accepted manuscript publicly available (e.g. on a preprint server, institutional repository, or personal webpage) is good practice, and is now permitted by almost all publishing outlets.

 

 

TOP Rubric for Publication Assessment

(1 point for each checkbox)

  1. Data, Analytical Methods, Code, and Research Materials Transparency

    • Did the author (hereafter applicant) indicate that the data, methods used in the analysis, and materials used to conduct the research are publicly available.
    • Did the applicant make the data available at a trusted digital repository? (Note: If all data required to reproduce the reported analyses appears in the article text, tables, and figures then it does not also need to be posted to a repository.)
    • Did the applicant include all variables, treatment conditions, and observations described in the manuscript?
    • Did the applicant provide a full account of the procedures used to collect, preprocess, clean, or generate the data?
    • Did the applicant provide program code, scripts, codebooks, and other documentation sufficient to precisely reproduce all published results?
    • Did the applicant provide research materials and description of procedures necessary to conduct an independent replication of the research?
  2. Design and Analysis Transparency

    • Did the applicant report on the process by which they followed standards for disclosing key aspects of the research design and data analysis. For example, did the applicant review the standards available for many research applications from http://www.equator-network.org/ and use those that are relevant for the reported research applications?
  3. Preregistration of Study

    • Did the applicant, in acknowledgments or the first footnote, indicate if they did or did not pre-register the research in an independent, institutional registry?
    • If an applicant did preregister the research, the applicant must confirm that the study was registered prior to conducting the research with links to the time-stamped pre-registrations at the institutional registry, and that the preregistration adheres to the disclosure requirements of the institutional registry or those required for the preregistered badge maintained by the Center for Open Science.
    • Did the applicant report all pre-registered analyses in the text, or, if there were changes in the analysis plan following preregistration, those changes must be disclosed with explanation for the changes?
    • Did the applicant clearly distinguish in text analyses that were preregistered from those that were not, such as having separate sections in the results for confirmatory and exploratory analyses?

 

 

2. Best First Paper

This award aims to recognize and reward researchers who, in the calendar year 2020, published their first peer-reviewed publication, and in the production of said output, sought to maximize the transparency, openness, and reproducibility of their work. The publication is required to have been published with a DOI online (i.e., either “online early” view or in issue) by the publisher in the calendar year 2020. This might not correspond to the final publication date associated with the citation.

 

Eligibility: The first author of the paper published in 2020 must be a graduate student or post-doctoral researcher.

If the awardee is selected by the committee with lead time sufficient time, the awardee will be invited to give a short (~15 minute) presentation at the inaugural SORTEE conference, to be held 12-14 July 2021. The awardee’s work will also be promoted by SORTEE via Twitter, and announced to other EEB societies (e.g. CSEE, ESA). In this inaugural year for SORTEE and its activities, we unfortunately do not have funds available for awards, and we may not be able to select the awardee with sufficient lead time to provide presentation slots at the conference.

 

Application materials:
(i) A letter (maximum 500 words) describing why you are deserving of this award, and referring to evidence and examples (accessible to adjudicators through URLs / DOIs) of how your publication and the work that went into it exemplifies Open Science best practices.
(ii) An up-to-date resumé (maximum 2 pages as a .pdf).
(iii) A .pdf copy of the paper.

   

Please submit nominations by 1 June 2021 to Clint Kelly at kelly.clint@uqam.ca