Hynes Awards Nomination Form

Nomination Form

Nomination deadline: November 15th

We welcome nominations for the Hynes Award for New Investigators at any time. All nominations received before November 15th of each year will be considered for the subsequent year. Nominations should include a CV or resume of the nominee as well as the paper for which the candidate is being nominated.

The Hynes Award recognizes an outstanding paper led by a new investigator. In our deliberations, the committee also wishes to appreciate the broader impacts of nominated papers, and any additional contributions by nominees. Thus, whereas nominations will primarily be judged on the scientific merits and impact of the paper, the nominee’s role in developing the research and the broader considerations of the nominee as a new investigator and contributor to the SFS community will also be considered.  Toward that end, the committee has developed a new nomination process based a set of six directed questions (see below), each of which will be given equal weight in the evaluation process.  

Files must be less than 2 MB.
Allowed file types: pdf doc docx.
Files must be less than 4 MB.
Allowed file types: pdf doc docx.
Files must be less than 4 MB.
Allowed file types: pdf doc docx.
Files must be less than 4 MB.
Allowed file types: pdf doc docx.

Supporting Evidence: Details

Please limit responses to the following questions to 200 words each and upload in the field above.

1. What are the most important conceptual contributions of this paper? 

2.  What are the potential broader impacts of this paper, including but not limited to management implications? 

3. What was the nominee’s role in developing and implementing the overall project (e.g., idea generation, funding, field work, etc.)? 

4. What was the nominee’s specific contribution to the paper (e.g., writing, data analysis, data interpretation, graphics, etc.)? 

5. Provide highlights of the nominee’s other contributions as a new investigator (e.g., mentoring students, working with stakeholders, broadening participation in science, public engagement, etc.)? inee’s specific contribution to the paper (e.g., writing, data analysis, data interpretation, graphics, etc.)? 

6. Are there additional considerations of which the evaluation committee should be aware (e.g., involvement with SFS, unusual challenges overcome by the nominee, etc.)?