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 (whether bench top, clinical, epidemiologic, or translational) are welcome for membership in SPR. To gain membership, an investigator must show evidence of hypothesis-related research as a major focus of their career, through publications and funding, supplemented by letters. SPR aims to strike a compromise between the extremes of being an elitist society (honorary) vs. one that has an open-door policy to all who are interested.

Review Criteria

Credentials:

• Have completed an advanced degree (beyond Bachelor’s degree).
• At the time of application, ≥ 2-3 years post completion of fellowship or, if no fellowship undertaken, ≥ 2-3 years post final training position (including post-doc, for PhD nominees).
• For allied health professionals, the requirement for an advanced degree can be waived if there is demonstrated evidence of an independent research program.

Research leadership, participation, productivity:

• Research leadership, participation and productivity in an area relevant to pediatrics/child health with an independent trajectory as demonstrated by one or more of the following: 
  • One or more recent (< 2-3 years) first or last author publications of original-science, hypothesis-related, peer-reviewed research from studies completed after fellowship/research training. These publications must demonstrate intellectual leadership of the research effort.
  • 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.
  • Current (within 2-3 years) 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.

Publications submitted for review and grants listed should be responsive to and supportive of this criterion. For funding, if the nominee is not PI/multi-PI, the entry should be annotated with the nominee’s role in obtaining the grant and conducting the research.

Current Research Activity

• Must have one or more publications demonstrating independent research (studies completed after research training period)
  • One or more recent (< 2-3 years), quality, original-science, peer-reviewed publication(s) in a topic related to pediatrics or child health for work completed after fellowship/ research training
• Middle author papers are considered if letters of support identify that the Nominee has a leadership role relevant to the work, such as within the collaborative research group or network
• Submitted publications should be annotated:
  • To describe the hypothesis for the work in question
  • To describe the nominee’s role in the work such that intellectual leadership of the research is demonstrated

Manuscripts that reflect work completed during the research training period do not qualify, nor do review or position papers, commentaries or book chapters

Hypothesis-related Research

Application should demonstrate that Nominee is engaged in hypothesis-related research as a major focus of their career, through publications and funding, supplemented by letters.

Letters of Support

Letters of support from Nominator and Seconder must support the nominee as an investigator with evidence of hypothesis-related research as a major focus of their professional activity.

• A template for the Nominator letter was provided.
• If the fellowship mentor is a co-author or the Nominee continues to work in the same research environment after completion of training, letters must include specific information regarding the Nominee’s independent contributions. A supplemental letter in this regard from the mentor or other faculty member with in-depth knowledge can be provided if appropriate.

Scoring the Review

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

There will be little or no opportunity to discuss the nominees rated as “meets criteria” or “does not meet criteria” by both reviewers. Most candidates should fall into one of these categories! If there is disagreement between reviewers, I will evaluate the application 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.

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

New Member Outstanding Science Award
To help identify new members to be considered for the “New Member Outstanding Science Award” please select the top two nominees that you reviewed. There will be an opportunity for another vote once the top candidates have been identified.

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 very much 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 phone (346.258.6252) or email. 

I look forward to our discussion during the SPR Council meeting on October 6.