JSM Early Career Paper Awards: Reviewer Scoring Rubric
0. Screen for Eligibility and Relevance to Biometrics Section Award (Yes/No)
A. Eligibility Pre-Screen – Applicant must meet all of the following:
· Early career status: Applicant has held a doctorate in statistics, biostatistics, or a related quantitative field for three years or less as of May 2025 or is currently enrolled as a student. Extensions for caretaking responsibilities, illness, or other considerations are allowed.
· Biometrics Section membership: Applicant must show proof of current membership of the Biometrics Section (membership may be completed at the time of submission). Note: ASA membership alone does not confer section membership; applicants must join individual sections separately.
· No previous award: Applicant has not previously won the Byar Award or a Biometrics Section paper award.
B. Award Category Relevance – Paper must meet the criteria for the submitted award category:
· Papers in Biometric Methodology: Proposes novel statistical methodology addressing a problem relevant to the biosciences.
· Papers in Biometrics Practice: Demonstrates innovative applications of an existing method in a novel context, re-examines statistical practices from a new perspective, or proposes innovative and practical data analysis strategies.
Reviewer Decision:
· Yes: Applicant meets eligibility and paper meets category relevance – proceed with full review.
· No: Applicant or paper does not meet criteria – do not continue reviewing
1. Scientific Rigor (1–5)
Evaluate the technical rigor and validity of the work. Consider whether the methodology is sound, analyses are correct, and conclusions are supported by evidence, whether the paper is methodological or applied.
1: Very low rigor; major flaws or unsupported claims.
2: Low rigor; some weaknesses in method, analysis, or evidence.
3: Moderate rigor; generally sound but minor gaps or limitations exist.
4: High rigor; methods, analyses, and evidence are strong and reliable.
5: Excellent rigor; highly robust, well-supported, and technically sound contribution.
2. Scientific Relevance / Practical Utility (1–5)
Evaluate how the paper advances the field or informs practice, considering both:
- Methodology papers: Does it offer new, useful statistical methods with potential applications?
- Practice papers: Does it provide actionable insights, novel applications, or meaningful strategies in real-world contexts?
1: Minimal relevance; limited insight or applicability for either methodology or practice.
2: Some relevance; touches on useful methods or applications but lacks depth or clarity.
3: Moderate relevance; provides meaningful insights, practical strategies, or methodological contributions.
4: High relevance; offers actionable guidance, innovative methods, or broadly useful applications.
5: Exceptional relevance; transformative, highly innovative, and likely to influence research methodology or practice widely.
3. Clarity / Organization (1–5)
Assess communication, structure, and readability.
1: Poor; difficult to follow, disorganized.
2: Limited; some points clear, overall structure weak.
3: Moderate; generally clear, minor inconsistencies.
4: Good; well-organized, effective communication.
5: Excellent; very clear, precise, easy to understand.
4. Overall Impact (1–5)
Assess the holistic contribution of the paper, considering rigor, relevance, novelty, and influence. Think of the overall significance to the field of biometrics.
1: Minimal impact; unlikely to influence research or practice.
2: Limited; may offer some insights, not widely applicable.
3: Moderate; could influence ongoing research or applied work.
4: High; likely to influence research and/or practice.
5: Exceptional; substantial potential to advance methodology, practice, or the field broadly.