Alfred Gessow Award for
Best Paper at the AHS Annual Forum
Updated: 14 June 2005
Updated: 14 June 2005
1. Award Statement
The
Alfred Gessow Award for Best Paper prepared for and presented at the AHS Annual
Forum has been established to recognize the author(s) who has prepared and
presented the most significant Forum technical paper as judged and selected by
his/her peers. While the quality of the archived paper is
paramount in the selection process, the quality of the presentation of the
material at the Forum must also be taken into account. The
selected paper is presented at the European Rotorcraft Forum (ERF).
The award consists of a plaque from the American Helicopter Society and an
Honorarium that will pay for travel by one author to the European Rotorcraft Forum.
The Honorarium is provided by the Alfred Gessow Foundation. Complimentary
registration and accommodations for the selected author are provided by the
ERF. The author of each candidate paper (i.e., the paper selected as
“best” by each Committee or Special Session) will receive a certificate to that
effect, and a letter of commendation will be sent to the person’s supervisor.
2. Objectives
i. Encourage
AHS members to maintain/improve technical excellence with high quality
technical papers at the AHS Annual Forum.
ii. Recognize
the author(s) who make significant technical contributions via their Forum
papers and presentations.
3. Eligibility
To be eligible, the paper must be in general accordance with the format
prescribed by the Guidelines to Authors and received by AHS (or the contractor
it specifies) in time for inclusion in the Proceeding of that year’s Annual
Forum. The award is open to all authors who prepare a paper for (and
present it in) any Technical or Special[1] Session
at the AHS Forum. In the event of co-authors, the award will be given to
the principal author provided that he/she presented the paper. If a
co-author presents the paper, the co-author will be considered for presentation
of the paper at the ERF. However, all co-authors will receive a plaque
that recognizes their paper as the “Best Forum Paper.” The Lichten Paper
Award winner is not eligible for consideration.
4. Selection Process
Technical
Committees with sessions at the Forum will evaluate and score the papers from
their session (or sessions). The process for evaluation and scoring is at
the discretion of the Committee, but should include a subcommittee of the
Committee composed of no fewer than three members from that Committee. It
is suggested that the Scoring System described in Section 5 be used in the
process.
The
Chair of a Special Session may recommend a candidate for Best Paper, provided
it meets the eligibility requirements described above. Since Special
Sessions typically do not have a Committee supporting them and frequently have
very few papers which meet the eligibility requirements, the Chair of the
Special Session has the latitude to define his/her own selection process.
For candidates from Special Sessions, the AHS Technical Director will assign
them to an appropriate Deputy Director.
Prior
to the Forum, each Technical Committee or Special Session will evaluate all
eligible papers in accordance with their Committee’s or Session’s
process. The most highly scored papers (up to three[2])
should be provided to the appropriate Deputy Director prior to the Forum to
allow the Deputy Director to attempt to personally observe their
presentation. Based on the quality of the presentations, each committee
is free to alter its pre-Forum rank-ordering as it deems appropriate. As
soon as is practical after the conclusion of a Committee’s session(s), but no
later than seven days after the end of the Forum, each Committee/Session is to
provide its final selection of its Best Paper to its Deputy Director.
Each
Deputy Director will then select the best paper from his/her Technical Area and
forward the candidate to the AHS Technical Director. When submitting the
selection for Best Paper from his/her Technical Area, each Deputy Director must
attest to the quality of the presentation of the paper. Recognizing the
potential difficulty for a Deputy Director to attend presentations of all of
the most highly-scored papers, that judgment of presentation quality may be
based on either the Deputy Director’s personal observation of the presentation
or an assessment from the appropriate Committee. Who makes the assessment
of presentation quality is not critical; it is just critical that the
assessment be made. Who makes the assessment should be agreed upon by the
Deputy Director and each of his/her Committees prior to the Forum.
The
AHS Technical Director will form a Review Committee which is chaired by
himself/herself and includes representatives from industry, government, and
academia to make the final selection of “Best Paper of the Forum.”
5. Scoring System
At each evaluation
level, the scoring system outlined below should be used for ranking the
candidate papers.
Element Rating Weighting Max
Factor
Factor
1.
Originality/creativity
0 to 5
6
30
2. Technical Content 0 to 5 6 30
3. Relevance of Contribution 0 to 5 4 20
4. Organization and Clarity 0 to 5 4 20
2. Technical Content 0 to 5 6 30
3. Relevance of Contribution 0 to 5 4 20
4. Organization and Clarity 0 to 5 4 20
Total
100
Each “Rating” should be
an integer. Reviewers should use the following table to assist them in
assigning numerical ratings. Note that the scale is only intended to be
linear between 1 and 5, not between 0 and 1. Any Element that could not
be graded higher than a “C” should be rated zero.
Score
|
Adjectives
and Guidance Corresponding to Numerical Ratings
|
5
|
Excellent, Outstanding, Nearly
Perfect, World Class, Breakthrough (an “A+”)
|
4
|
Superior, Very Impressive; not a
“5”, but certainly better than a “3” (an “A”)
|
3
|
Very Good, Particularly
Noteworthy, Very Promising (a “B+”)
|
2
|
Good; not a “3”, but definitely
better than a “1” (a “B” )
|
1
|
Adequate, Potentially
Promising (a “C+”)
|
---
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
0
|
Marginal, Poor, None,
Non-existent, Not qualified (a “C” or less)
|
For scoring within a
Technical Committee, any paper which has an element rated “zero” should be
disqualified. (However, if the abstract was good enough to be selected,
the chances of an element being rated zero should be quite small.) For
scoring by the Deputy Directors and subsequently by the Technical Director’s
Review Committee, all of the papers are expected to be quite good, or they
would not have advanced so far in the competition (i.e., no zeros would be
expected). Therefore, the scale is designed to have an adequate number of
scores available to make distinctions between the best of the best.
6. Schedule for Selection Process
The detailed steps in the selection process are listed below:
Step
|
Date
|
Responsibility
|
Action
|
1
|
Not later than the final date for
submittal of papers to the Proceedings’ web site
|
Tech Committee Chair in
consultation with Session Chair(s)
|
Establish selection process for
their Committee
|
2
|
Not later than 7 calendar days before
the start of the Annual Forum
|
Tech Committee or Special Session
Chair
|
Provide the top three (depending
on the number of sessions[3]) rated written paper(s) to
Committee’s Deputy Director
|
3
|
At Tech Council Meeting during
Forum
|
AHS Technical Director
|
Announce membership of Tech
Director’s Review Committee
|
4
|
During the Annual Forum
|
Each Deputy Director
|
To the extent practical, observe
presentation of best-ranked written papers from each of their Technical
Committees
|
5
|
Not later than 7 calendar days
after the end of the Annual Forum
|
Each Technical Committee Chair in
conjunction with their Session Chair(s)
|
Provide their overall best paper
to their respective Deputy Director
|
6
|
Not later than 7 calendar days
after receipt of best paper candidate
|
Each Deputy Director
|
Select best paper from their
technical area, including an endorsement of the quality of the presentation,
and submit decision to AHS Technical Director.
|
7
|
Within 7 calendar days of receipt
of Deputy Director decision
|
AHS Headquarters staff
|
Distribute selected Best Tech Area
papers to Tech Director’s Review Committee
|
8
|
Not later than 14 calendar days of
receipt of best paper candidates
|
Tech Director’s Review Committee
|
Complete reviewing and scoring of
papers and make recommendation of “Best Paper of the Forum” to Tech Director
and AHS Headquarters.
|
9
|
As soon as possible after “Best
Paper” selection is announced
|
AHS Headquarters
|
Arrange for presentation of “Best
Paper of the Forum” at ERF
|
10
|
Within 45 calendar days of the end
of the Forum
|
AHS Headquarters
|
Recognize “Best Paper of the
Forum” with plaques, certificates, etc.
|
Responsibilities
may be delegated as appropriate or necessary as long as there is at least an
email or similar document to confirm the delegation.
7. Award
The AHS International
will provide the Alfred Gessow Honorarium to cover the travel expenses of the
selected author who will be invited to present his/her paper at the European
Rotorcraft Forum. This will include travel from a point within the United
States to the site of the ERF. The winner and his/her co-author(s) will
also receive plaques recognizing their selection. Submittal of the Best
Paper for publication in the Journal of the American Helicopter Society is
strongly encouraged.
[1] Presenters at Special Sessions generally
just present; they are not always required to prepare and submit a paper for
inclusion in the Proceedings. However, if they do submit a paper prepared
in accordance with the guidelines for papers in Technical Sessions and do so by
the deadline, they are eligible.
[2] The number of selected written papers by a
given Technical Committee or Special Session depends on the number of
qualifying papers being presented at the Forum. It is expected an average of
one selected written paper per seven papers (one session). No more than three
recommendations should be submitted by a single Technical Committee.
[3] It is expected an average of one selected
written paper per session at the Forum. Typically, a session contains seven
papers.