TO: |
SPR Council Members |
FROM: |
Roberta Keller, SPR Director of Membership |
RE: |
Review of SPR Candidates for 2025 Membership |
DEADLINE: |
August 30 2024 - NEED TO ADD date at the bottom of this memo |
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. In order to gain membership, an investigator must show evidence of an independent trajectory as demonstrated by one or more of the following. 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.
Pediatric/child health researchers with current, hypothesis-related (focused on development and/or testing of a hypothesis), research activities are welcome to apply for membership to SPR. All criteria for membership must be met and the application should be completed to address the following criteria, as described below:
- Appropriate credentials
- Leadership, participation and productivity in pediatric/child health research
- Current research activity as demonstrated by a recent, peer-reviewed, original science publication relevant to pediatrics or child health
- Hypothesis-related research relevant to pediatrics or child health
- Letters of support from both a Nominator and a Seconder who are Active Members of SPR
Review Criteria
Credentials Required |
|
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:
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. |
Publication/current activity |
Publication(s) demonstrating independent research (studies conducted after completion of research training period).
|
Hypothesis-related research/current and active |
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 |
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. Template for Nominator letter will be provided. |
Finalizing the Review
Once you have reviewed the application using the criteria above, please indicate:
Meets Criteria |
Certain acceptance.
|
Does Not Meet Criteria |
Decline because the candidate clearly does not meet criteria for acceptance. This includes candidates that may qualify for membership in the future (i.e. early career investigators that cannot yet show proof of independent work).
|
Discuss |
Use this category to indicate that you would like further discussion as to qualifications of candidate (e.g. uncertainty about current research productivity or whether research is hypothesis-driven). |
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.
N.B. 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
Please identify the top two nominees that you reviewed to be considered for the awards. 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 or that you otherwise are uncomfortable reviewing, 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 the SPR Office, at 346.258.6252 or email Tina Carberry.
I look forward to our discussion during the SPR Council meeting on _______________.