The BSST logo
British Society of
Sugar Technologists
40 years of Service

 

Mike Bennett Award Guidelines

Selection Committee

The Selection Committee should comprise all Members of Council on the assumption that not all will be able to attend both Technical Sessions and all presentations. Selection will be based on a simple majority of votes cast by those Members of Council who have attended all presentations. In the event of a tie, the President or Vice President should make the final selection and, in doing so, may use the selectors’ numerical assessments.

Selection Procedure

The following notes are intended to provide guidelines for the numerical assessment of BSST presentations. The recommended procedure is aimed at making the selection more objective, with the papers being rated by each assessor according to total points given.

The assessment is divided into three parts – the written paper [including PowerPoint hard copy print-outs], the presentation itself and the interest to BSST Members, all as shown below.

1
The Written Paper
 
A maximum of 20 points if a formal written paper (Journal standard or close to Journal standard) or a maximum of 10 points if an electronic copy of a detailed PowerPoint style presentation is made available. The Secretary is to circulate copies of papers as soon after the meeting as possible.
2
The Presentation
 
A maximum of 30 points, five points each for a) to f) below :
  1. Speaker – [5 points]
    • preparation, clarity, diction, poise, style;
  2. Style – [5 points]
    • was the paper read word for word or was it discussed from visual material?
    • was the speaker obviously totally familiar with the subject, or could you not tell?
    • or was he obviously unfamiliar?
    • was the presentation dull or exciting?
  3. Visual Material – [5 points]
    • was this specially prepared for the presentation and was it clearly legible and helpful?
  4. Audience Response – [5 points]
    • was there obvious interest in the paper?
      were a lot of questions asked?
  5. Ability to Answer Questions – [5 points]
    • were answers readily available or were arrangements made for a written reply?
    • or did the speaker waffle?
  6. Special Considerations – [5 points]
    • was the presenter not the author?
    • was English the native language of the speaker?
    • was the programme running late?
    • was the paper last in the programme?
    • was the auditorium uncomfortable or noisy?
    • was the audio visual equipment working properly?
3
Interest and Value to BSST Members
 
A maximum 50 points, as allocated below :
  1. Subject Matter – [20 points]
    • novel (plus), topical (plus), original (plus)?
    • or was it routine (level)?
    • or have you heard it before (minus)?
  2. Applicability – [10 points]
    • was the subject matter of broad interest (plus)?
    • or specific to a very narrow discipline only (minus)?
    • In papers where conclusions are appropriate, were these :
      1. practical (plus)?
      2. theoretical (level)?
      3. or omitted (minus)?
  3. Quality of Data – [10 points]
    • were all statements or conclusions fully supported by adequate numerical or other data?
    • were the sources of data clearly described and was the reproducibility and/or significance of data refined?
    • could the data be checked by others in the laboratory or field?
  4. Frankness – [10 points]
    • was the author open in describing the possible errors or pitfalls which were encountered or which may be present in the work?

It is recognised that certain presentations may not suit this numerical assessment, yet may be judged as of outstanding quality or value to BSST Members. The Selection Committee may in its collective wisdom ignore the scoring and give the MCB Award to such a presentation.