AGU utilizes a two-step nomination and review process to enhance the accessibility and equity of the Union Medals, Awards, and Prizes Program.
Round-one Review
First-round nomination packages must include two components: a statement of intent and a description of how the nominee aligns with AGU's values. Each statement should be between 250 and 500 words in length and must exclude any individually identifying information about the nominee. For guidance on how to anonymize a nomination, please refer to the Tips for Anonymizing Nominations.
- Statement of Intent
- Statement of Nominee Alignment with AGU Values
The statement should highlight those characteristics that make the nominee a good match for the award, specifically as they relate to the award’s primary criteria/scope.
The statement should outline the degree to which the nominee aligns with AGU values.
First-round nomination packages are reviewed anonymously by the selection committee. Nominators whose nominee is moved to the second round of review will be asked to submit additional materials.
During the first round of review, nominees are evaluated based on their alignment with the primary criteria/scope of the award and their alignment with AGU values. The identities of nominees are not shared with the selection committee at this stage to promote fair scoring and reduce bias during the evaluation process.
Round-two Review
During the second round of review, the selection committee uses a standard rubric to evaluate the nominee’s alignment with the award’s primary criteria and AGU , as well as the quality of the nomination package.
Second-round nomination materials should be submitted as unencrypted, watermark-free PDFs through the nomination portal. A complete round-two nomination package consists of the following items (note that letterhead is preferred):
- Nomination Letter
- CV
- Bibliography
- Supporter Questionnaire
- Please comment on the nominee’s relevance to the primary criteria for this opportunity.
- Please comment on the nominee’s alignment with AGU values.
A nomination letter containing the nominator’s name, title, institution, and contact information detailing how the nominee meets the selection criteria.
The nominee’s curriculum vitae, that includes the candidate’s name, address, email, history of employment, degrees, research experience, honors, memberships, and service to the community (committee work, advisory boards, etc.).
A selected bibliography that states the total number and types of publications and the number published by AGU. The bibliography should include papers that encompass the candidate’s overall research and scientific contributions. Rather than selecting the most recent publications, nominators are encouraged to choose those that best support the argument for this honor.
Nominator’s will task three supporters with answering a questionnaire about the nominee’s alignment with the spirit of the award. Nominators will do this in the nomination portal.
Supporters will be required to answer the following prompts about the nominee. Each response should be between 250 and 500 words in length.
The selection committee’s final awardee recommendation reports are given to the Honors and Recognition (H&R) Committee to certify the evaluation process.
AGU Standard Rubric
Selection committees use the following rubric to evaluate nomination packages during the second stage of the nomination process.
|
|
||||
|
Excellent 5 |
Very Good 4 |
Good 3 |
Average 2 |
Below Average 1 |
|
The nominee fully embodies all the criteria for this honor, making outstanding contributions that significantly impact the field and demonstrate the highest level of excellence. |
The nominee’s contributions strongly align with the majority of criteria, providing meaningful and high-quality contributions that go beyond the standard requirements. |
The nominee’s contributions meet several of the criteria, with consistent and adequate contributions. There may be areas where further development or depth is needed. |
The nominee’s contributions meet only a portion of the criteria, with noticeable gaps in alignment or contributions that lack consistency. |
The nominee’s contributions address only a small portion of the criteria for the honor, with limited depth, impact, or consistency, and fall short of expectations. |
|
|
||||
|
Excellent 5 |
Very Good 4 |
Good 3 |
Average 2 |
Below Average 1 |
|
The nominee’s contributions demonstrate a strong and clear alignment with all of AGU’s values, showing deep commitment and consistent application of these values in their work and actions. |
The nominee’s contributions strongly reflect alignment with the majority of AGU’s values, with clear examples of how they demonstrate these values in a consistent and meaningful way. |
The nominee’s contributions demonstrate alignment with several of AGU’s values, providing adequate examples of how they reflect these values, though there may be room for greater consistency or depth in demonstrating alignment. |
The nominee’s contributions demonstrate alignment with only a few of AGU’s values, with inconsistent or limited examples of how these values are demonstrated, requiring further development or clearer connection to the values. |
The nominee’s contributions demonstrate little to no alignment with AGU’s values, with weak or unclear demonstrations of these values. |
|
|
||||
|
Excellent 5 |
Very Good 4 |
Good 3 |
Average 2 |
Below Average 1 |
|
The nomination package is exceptionally organized, with seamless consistency between the nomination letter and supporting materials, making it easy to follow and thoroughly compelling. |
The nomination package is well-organized, with strong consistency between the nomination letter and supporting materials. While mostly clear, there may be minor areas for improvement in flow or detail. |
The nomination package is adequately organized, but there is inconsistency between the nomination letter and supporting materials. Some parts may lack clarity or completeness. |
The nomination package is somewhat disorganized, and the consistency between the nomination letter and supporting materials is weak. It may require more clarity, detail, or structure to make sense of the content. |
The nomination package is significantly disorganized and lacks consistency between the nomination letter and supporting materials. It is difficult to follow, with missing or unclear details, making the overall submission less effective. |
2026 Review Timeline
- 5 January: Nomination period opens
- 2 March: Nomination period closes
- 23 March -24 April: Selection committees review nominations
- 30 April -1 May: Nominators notified about whether their nominee will move forward to the second round
- 4 May Submission period opens
- 5 June: Submission period closes
- 17 June -24 July: Selection committees review nomination packages
- 28 July: Recommendation reports due to the Honors and Recognition (H&R) Committee
- 17 August: H&R Committee meets to certify the evaluation process conducted by the selection committees
- TBD September: 2026 Union medal, award, and prize recipients announced
- 9 December: AGU Honors Ceremony 2026