ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
Recognition as an ACS Fellow is a signature achievement to be highly regarded. The ACS Fellow designation requires significant achievements in the profession and service to the American Chemical Society, two diverse areas. That is a combination of success that many don’t attain. In recognition of the quality of our members, more than 900 ACS members are now ACS Fellows, and many more deserve to be named.
One important feature of the ACS Fellow designation is that it is not comparable to the fellow designations of other organizations. Some societies designate a member as a fellow after a predetermined length of membership. Others recognize only top-level researchers among their members as fellows. The bottom line is that if someone is a fellow of another society, there is no absolute assumption that they will qualify to be an ACS Fellow. The converse is also true.
The criteria for ACS Fellow are as follows: (1) documented excellence and leadership that has an impact in the science, the profession, education, and/or management, and (2) documented excellence and leadership in volunteer service, based on specific results achieved, in service to ACS and its membership and community. These criteria have been in place since the program’s inception in 2009, but we added some clarifying language this year to better communicate the importance of impact.
The ACS Fellow designation is not a longevity award. For example, perhaps your nominee has been secretary of their local section for 20 years. The question to be answered is the following: What is the evidence that significant impact was made? For example, did the secretary advance the local section’s technology, transitioning from paper to electronic communication? Were ways implemented to help section members write important reports and archive them? The same holds true on the professional side. A long publication or patent list is noteworthy, but what discoveries or new fields resulted from the nominee’s research? Or, how did the patented products or technologies benefit society and/or the bottom line of the nominee’s company? A long-term service position or a long publication or patent list implies impact, but often nominators skim over the important component of documenting this impact, which is critical for a successful nomination. A new resource is available this year to provide examples of impactful statements; click on “Nominee Impact Examples” at www.acs.org/fellows.
Another important aspect to consider for nominators is that while excellence in ACS service is common to all ACS Fellows, the professional activities of ACS Fellows vary greatly. One of the more challenging aspects for the ACS Fellows reviewers is to appropriately evaluate professional excellence and impact across diverse professions. Unlike other topical ACS awards, where the reviewers have expertise in the area of the award, ACS Fellows reviewers are not expected to be experts in a nominee’s professional field. Given this, I emphasize again the importance of clearly communicating, via letters of recommendation and the nomination form, the nominee’s important achievements and the impact of those achievements in both their professional and volunteer activities.
Whether you are seeking funding, project approval, promotion/tenure, or a new job, it is important to know your audience. The same applies to the submission of an ACS Fellow nomination. There are two committees. First, the selection committee has a large number of volunteer ACS members who review about 20 nominations each. Two members of the selection committee, who must provide justifications for their reviews, independently evaluate each nomination. The chair of the selection committee then evaluates each nomination and its reviews to help ensure the selection criteria are applied uniformly. Second, there is a six-member oversight committee that decides on nominations for which the selection committee requests additional evaluation. All members of the oversight committee must review these cases and provide insight to inform the chair’s decision. Additionally, all members of the oversight committee may review any other nominations to help ensure, once again, that the criteria are properly applied. Finally, the chair of the oversight committee conducts a final review by independently reading and evaluating all nominations, before transmitting the recommendations to the ACS Board Committee on Grants & Awards for final approval.
We understand that a great deal of time and effort goes into a fellow nomination. We appreciate members who undertake this service to recognize and honor their colleagues. It is disappointing to be turned down, and it is even more disheartening if there is no feedback. This year, I made an offer to write a confidential summary of the reviews of any nomination that was not successful in order to encourage useful revisions. These letters are sent only to, and at the request of, the primary nominator.
I have tried to elucidate the ACS Fellows criteria and the review and selection process to enhance success of nominations. If there are any questions or suggestions, please feel free to contact us at fellows@acs.org.
Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of ACS.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter