The Award is given for the best oral presentation by a student on a topic in Comparative Morphology and Development at the Annual Meeting.
The Award is given for the best oral presentation by a student on a topic in comparative morphology and development at the Annual Meeting.
The recipient currently receives an award of $400.
Funded through ZET.
Normally, one Award is given annually at the Annual Meeting, with the winner being announced at the awards ceremony.
Undergraduate, MSc and PhD students are eligible to apply. Postdoctoral students whose thesis defense was prior to the last Annual Meeting are not eligible. At the time of application, a student must either be in an active undergraduate/graduate program, or have completed his/her bachelor's degree or defended his/her thesis since the last Annual Meeting. For a student who has already defended his/her thesis, the research incorporated in the presentation must have been conducted during the applicant's graduate program. Applicants who are not sole author of a presentation should read the next section carefully.
To apply, students will normally:
(a) indicate that they wish to be considered for the Award at the time of abstract submission, and
(b) confirm that they are a paid-up member of the CSZ and an active member of the CMD Section.
In the case of multi-author presentations, applicants must be first author, and must also submit a letter from their supervisor (or the most senior co-author) attesting that the research being presented was primarily that of the applicant (i.e., first author). The letter should be addressed and sent to the Chair of the CMD Section (E-mail is sufficient).
The best student presentation will be the one that is the most memorable in terms of the quality and significance of the research, and the quality of the presentation. Recommended criteria and weighting are as follows:
(a) (50%) quality & significance of the research: Was the research well justified (did it address an important question)? Were the results compelling and stimulating? Were the conclusions well supported? How exciting or memorable was the research?
(b) (20%) technical quality of the presentation (quality of graphics, clarity of figures and tables, quality of organization & timing),
(c) (20%) quality of the defense of the research (e.g., during the talk or during questions), and
(d) (10%) poise of the speaker throughout the presentation and questions. In the event that the judges feel two presentations were of equal quality, preference should be given to the more junior student (e.g., MSc over PhD, on the grounds that the MSc student has had less experience and time to do the research).