ChemComm Emerging Investigator Lectureship

Nominations of candidates are invited from our community. We believe we have a responsibility to promote inclusivity and accessibility to improve diversity. Where possible, we encourage each nominator to consider nominating candidates of all genders, races, and backgrounds.

This prize is open to nominees globally.

Eligibility

• Nominees may not nominate themselves
• During the nomination and judging period, members of the ChemComm Editorial Board are not eligible to nominate or be nominated
• Candidates should be an independent early career scientist, having received their Ph.D. typically within 10 years of the award year
• Independence is defined as experience gained as part of a scientific career excluding time spent in full-time education, as a postgraduate student, or as a post-doctoral researcher
• Nominators will be asked to provide details of the nominee's professional experience, in relation to the criteria
• Career breaks will be recognised, and nominations are encouraged for those whose career has spanned a break due to caring responsibilities or personal circumstances e.g., a period of parental/adoption leave, family commitments, or illness
• Mid-career researchers (Ph.D. award within 10–15 years of the award year) may be nominated for the ChemSocRev Pioneering Lectureship

To make a nomination, please provide the following information.

• Your name and email address
• Your nominee's name, email address and affiliation
• An up to date CV for the nominee (no longer than one A4 side, 11pt text), which should include a summary of their education and career
• Details (title, publication year, DOI/reference no., abstract) of up to 5 relevant publications/patents where the nominee is the Lead and/or Corresponding author
  • These details should not be included on the nominee's CV, but provided in a separate document. At the initial stage of judging, the Judging Panel will not have access to information on journals in which articles are published. This is to help encourage nominations for a diverse range of nominees, and to enable the Judging Panel to focus on the scientific content of papers, as described in the supporting statement, without the influence of publication metrics
• A supporting letter from the nominator, including:
  • A statement (up to 750 words) addressing the nominee’s fulfilment of the selection criteria. As committee members will carry out their initial assessments without full details of relevant publications, please ensure this supporting statement clearly sets out how the scientific content of supporting publications addresses the selection criteria
  • A statement (up to 100 words) describing how the nominee has contributed more broadly to the scientific community, should also be included. A list of possible examples is outlined under "Assessment process and selection panel"
• One supporting letter of recommendation from an independent referee
  • The referee can be the nominee's post-doc or PhD supervisor, line manager, project manager or mentor
  • References should be a maximum of 750 words. Referees should state their relationship (if any) with the nominee and note any conflicts of interest
• Nominations lacking any of the required documents will not proceed to judging

We reserve the right to rescind any prize if there are reasonable grounds to do so. All nominators will be asked to confirm that, to the best of their knowledge, their nominee's professional standing is such that there is no confirmed or potential impediment to them receiving this prize. All winners will be asked to sign our Code of Conduct Declaration for Recognition.

Assessment process

Consideration is given to all information provided in the nomination documents.

Our judging panel bases their evaluations primarily on the overall quality of relevant contributions made by nominees and not on quantitative measures. The scientific content of any supporting publications, as described in the supporting statement, is much more important than publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which it is published.

The judging panel will consider the following aspects of nominations for this prize:

• originality of research
• impact of research
• quality of publications and/or patents and/or software
• innovation
• professional standing
• independence
• collaborations and teamwork
• other indicators of esteem indicated by the nominator/referee

In an instance where multiple nominees are judged equally meritorious in relation to the above criteria, judging panels have the flexibility to use the information provided by the nominator on the nominee’s broader contribution to the chemistry community as an additional criterion.

Examples of relevant contributions could include, but are not limited to:

• teaching/demonstrating
• effective mentorship
• leadership in the scientific community
• peer-reviewer
• promotion of diversity and inclusion
• advocacy for chemistry
• public engagement and outreach
• presenting/communication skills

Please note that the following will not be considered by the judging panel:

• Nominee’s previous nomination history
• Nominee’s previous award history
• The reputation, seniority, or prominence of the nominators/referees themselves
• Quantitative measures, i.e., publication metrics or the identity of the journal in which work is published
• Nominee involvement with Royal Society of Chemistry member groups/networks, service on Royal Society of Chemistry boards, or activities as a Royal Society of Chemistry peer-reviewer

Where multiple nominees are still judged equally meritorious in relation to the above criteria, the judging panel can appoint multiple winners who would share the honorarium.

Judging panel

• The editorial team will screen nominations for eligibility and draw up a longlist of candidates based on the nomination documents provided
• Winner(s) will be selected by the ChemComm Editorial Board