Thank you for reviewing the new member applications. This is one of the most important roles of being a council member. Investigators from all pediatric disciplines and all areas of research are welcome for membership in SPR. To gain membership, an investigator must show evidence of independent, hypothesis-related research as a major focus of their professional activity. SPR aims to strike a compromise between the extremes of being an elitist society (honorary) versus one that has an open-door policy to all.

Review Criteria

Criteria have been refined, as a broader group of researchers with more diverse training pathways have applied to the society. Click this link for detailed information. Broadly, the criteria are as follows:

1. Advanced degree beyond a Bachelor’s degree.
2. Leadership, participation and productivity in research relevant to pediatrics/child health as demonstrated by one or more of the following:
   1. Recent (< 2-3 years) first or last author publication of original-science, hypothesis-related, peer-reviewed research from studies completed after completion of fellowship/research training.
   2. Letter of support indicating that Nominee is a project leader within a collaborative research group or network, with relevant publications and funding supporting the role and productivity.
   3. Extramural grant funding in the Nominee’s primary research area, with Nominee’s role in securing funding described, or as PI/multi-PI. Funding is not required for membership, but it is supportive. Funding should be for investigator-initiated, hypothesis-related research. Individual career development (e.g., K series) and K99/R00 awards are considered.
   • Manuscripts that reflect work completed during research training (e.g., fellowship) do not qualify. In general, papers published during or within two years of completion of research training are not considered representative of the candidate’s independent work.
   • Review and position papers, commentaries and book chapters do not qualify.
      
3. Letters from the nominator and seconder must support the nominee as an investigator with evidence of independent, hypothesis-related research as a major focus of their professional activity.

Finalizing the Review

Once you have reviewed the application using the criteria above, please indicate:

There will be little or no opportunity to discuss concordant reviews (rated as “meets criteria” or “does not meet criteria” by both reviewers). Most candidates should fall into one of these categories! If review recommendations are discordant, I will evaluate the application prior to council and either adjudicate prior to council meeting or determine that the application merits discussion by council. If both reviewers rate the applicant as “discuss,” I will forward the application for full council review and discussion.

N.B. If you rate a nominee as “discuss,” or “does not meet criteria” please provide your detailed reasoning in the notes. Your comments will frame our discussion and/or help me provide specific feedback/recommendations to nominators of unsuccessful candidates.

New Member Outstanding Science Award
Please identify the top two nominees that you reviewed to be considered for the award. There will be an opportunity for another vote once we have identified the top candidates.

Reviewer Assignments

• Conflict of interest: Please let me know as soon as possible if I have assigned you a faculty colleague, former fellow, or other candidate for whom there may be a conflict of interest, so that I may reassign the file.
• Do not be concerned with “Reviewer 1” vs. “Reviewer 2” assignments. The input of each reviewer is equally important.

Thank you for your time and dedication in reviewing our new member nominations. If you have questions regarding membership materials or problems with the online nomination portal, please contact Tina Carberry by email or at 346.258.6252.

I look forward to our discussion during the SPR Council meeting on September 23.