Public version: Effective Thesis' Exceptional Research Award reviews

Effective Thesis' Exceptional Research Award reviews

Thank you for agreeing to become one of the reviewers for Effective Thesis' Exceptional Research Award! Your review will help us choose the winners of this award, put the spotlight on the best work, recognise its author and thus give them boost to their future research career. The main purpose of this review is to help us choose the winner for the award. By default, your review will then also be shared with a given applicant in an anonymised way (i.e. the applicant will not know who the reviewer was). Anyway, if you don't want your review to be read by the applicant, you can write an edited version of the review for the applicant if you wish to do so at the end of this form - in that case, we will share only the edited version with the applicant in anonymised way.
If you have any uncertainties or suggestions for improvements of this form, please address them directly to david.janku@effectivethesis.org.
Your Name*

First NameLast Name
Name of the file you reviewed (e.g. "4 - undergraduate level, fulltext"; the file was linked in our email conversation) - if you can't find the name of the file, please enter the title of the work you reviewed*
Reference group: "all undergraduate/masters/PhD thesis in top ~20 programmes in your field"

The submissions' potential impact should be compared to "what is the best impact-driven question someone could have asked in [the given research direction - e.g. Global Priorities Research or Alternative Proteins Development]". What should go into the judgements of "potential impact" is not whether they actually ended up finding something new (e.g. statistically significant effect), but rather whether they were looking at the right places (i.e. whether their question was well targeted).
How would you rate the quality and rigour of the work?*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 is Worst, 10 is Best
How would you rate novelty of the work?*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 is Worst, 10 is Best
How would you rate the ability of the work to make progress in the given research direction (the research directions we focused on for this prize are: Biosecurity and risks from engineered pathogens; Artificial Intelligence Safety; Other Global Catastrophic and Existential Risks; Animal welfare and sentience; Understanding progress and change; Global health and wellbeing; Understanding and improving decision-making processes; Global priorities research)*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 is Worst, 10 is Best
How would you rate the promise of this work in making positive impact in the world? (inclusive of various theories of change for impact, such as sparking new academic interest, influencing policy decisions, influencing funding decisions, influencing general public, etc...)*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 is Worst, 10 is Best
How would you rate the work overall, taking everything into account? Point 7 is "indefference for getting a prize", everything below is "should not get the prize" with varying levels of intensity and everything above is "should get the prize" with varying levels of intensity*

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 is Worst, 10 is Best
Please provide qualitative assessment of the work (minimum length of 300 words, but feel free to provide longer review, we will only appreciate it). The review should, among others, include answers to: What were the strongest parts/characteristics of this work? What were the weakest parts/characteristics of this work? Why did you give the scores above (can you provide more context to your rating)?*

0/0
Edited version of the review to share with the applicant (by default, the text of the review above will be shared with the applicant in an anonymized way, unless you use this box to write an edited version that will also be anonymised).
If you have made any comments directly to the text of the submission and want to share it with the author, feel free to submit your commented version here (though make sure not to disclose your identity in the comments as we are trying to stick with the double-blind method of evaluation). This is entirely voluntary - don't feel obligated to submit anything, the information from the questions above should be enough for us to make a decision.

Cancelof
Feedback on the process

To give us feedback anonymously, please use this form: https://form.jotform.com/XXXX
What would you change about the review process for the Exceptional Research Award? What did you find difficult? Are there any prompts/systems we can use to collect better information from reviewers?
Is there anything else about the Award or the process you experienced that we could improve?
Would you like to be connected with the author of the submission you reviewed? (If yes, please make sure you share your name with us above)

YesNo
Would you like to be connected with the author of the submission you reviewed? (If yes, please make sure you share your name with us above)

YesNo
Would you like to share some testimonial we can use in our public facing content (website, social media, etc..)?
Should be Empty:

Effective Thesis' Exceptional Research Award reviews

Reference group: "all undergraduate/masters/PhD thesis in top ~20 programmes in your field"

Feedback on the process