Overview

This document outlines the protocol for assessing eligibility criteria for projects nominated for the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (SORTEE) Commendation Awards. A Project is defined as any work that is an initiative benefiting the Eco-Evo community by fostering Open Science values or practices. Some examples of these include, but are not limited to, journal clubs, workshops, seminar series, websites, repositories, tools, educational materials, public talks, and podcasts. Sharing open data and/or code alongside a publication or software output is strongly valued; however, the presence of these materials alone does not constitute a project aimed at fostering Open Science values or practices. This means that a single research article with shared data or code will not be considered unless it involves a sustained effort, resource, or activity designed to foster Open Science practices within the Eco-Evo community. For more details and successful project applications from 2025 please refer to our website: https://sortee.org/awards/. There is no limit on the number of SORTEE Commendation awards given by the society per year. All nominated Projects meeting the eligibility criteria listed below will be considered for a Commendation award.

Eligibility criteria assessment protocol consists of two stages. Stage 1 involves administrative eligibility checks (e.g., confirming that at least one member of the project team or nominating person is a current SORTEE member, see SORTEE Commendation Awards eligibility). Stage 2 involves project eligibility checks (determining whether the project is related to the fields of ecology and/or evolutionary biology, or to closely related fields with implications for ecology and/or evolutionary biology and its Open Science Contribution). Each criterion is evaluated as ‘Yes’ (criterion clearly met), ‘No’ (criterion not met), or ‘Other,’ which allows reviewers to provide comments when the criterion cannot be confidently classified as ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. In some circumstances, Stage 2 criteria may be evaluated as ‘Needs clarification’ when the information provided in the nomination is insufficient to determine whether the project is related to Eco-Evo fields, and its Open Science contribution. In these cases, the Awards Committee will contact the nominating person to request additional information using the email address provided in the nomination form. The nominating person will be given a period of two weeks to provide the requested information. If the additional information is not provided within this time frame, the nomination will not be considered further. For Stage 2, Awards Committee members should also provide free-text examples from the proposal supporting their assessment of each eligibility criterion. For instance, reviewers should describe how the project relates to ecology and/or evolutionary biology, or closely related fields with implications for these disciplines (e.g., systematics, paleontology, marine biology).

At least two (2) members of the Awards committee will evaluate each proposal using a standardized Google Form to facilitate consistent evaluation and easier comparison across reviewers. If any inconsistencies among evaluations are identified, there will be a group discussion among all available members of the Awards Committee until consensus is reached. In case that the Awards Committee members cannot reach consensus, the proposal will be forwarded to the Board. After the proposal evaluations, the Chair of the Awards Committee, or designated member, writes recommendations and shares them with the Board for final decision.

The Awards Committee is required to communicate the outcome of the Board decision to the nominating person prior to the SORTEE annual conference in October where the Award winners are announced. It is the responsibility of the nominating person to inform all project members about the submission and outcome.

Stage 1: Administrative Eligibility Check

The administrative eligibility check evaluates whether:

The project nomination was submitted before the deadline of August 31, 2026 (23:59 UTC). Nominations received after the deadline will not be assessed in the current cycle; the Awards Committee will contact the nominating person and invite them to resubmit in the following cycle;
At least one project member or the nominating person is a current SORTEE member;
The project does not include, and was not nominated by, ineligible individuals during their active term in the Society (including Awards Committee members, the Awards DEI Representative, Board Directors, or Executive Officers).

The project lists names, email addresses, primary institutional affiliations (where appropriate), and contributions of all project members provided in a structured format. Failure to acknowledge all contributors by full name may render the nomination ineligible; however, team members may request not to have their names publicly displayed in award announcement materials (including SORTEE website and social media);
There is a project description (maximum 500 words) explaining why the project is deserving of a SORTEE Commendation Award;
There is an evidence supporting the project (e.g. link to the project’s website; maximum 2 pages);
There is a short public-facing blurb for the SORTEE website and promotional materials (maximum 200 words).

Criterion	Evaluation
The project was received before the deadline August 31, 2026 (23:59 UTC).	Yes No Other: <FREE TEXT>
At least one project member or nominating person is a current SORTEE member. *This requirement is verified in coordination with the SORTEE Secretary.	Yes No Other: <FREE TEXT>
The project does not include (or was not nominated by) ineligible individuals from the Awards Committee, the Awards DEI Representative, Board Directors, Executive Officers during their active term in the Society. *This requirement is verified in coordination with the SORTEE Secretary.	Yes No Other: <FREE TEXT>
The project has names, email addresses, primary institutional affiliations (where appropriate), and contributions of all project members in a structured format. Note: team members can request not to share their name publicly on award announcement materials. * Use ‘Yes’ if there is a large group of authors and the nominating person explicitly acknowledged that and offered to provide a full list of contributors on request. * Use ‘No’ if all project members/contributors were not acknowledged.	Yes No Other: <FREE TEXT>
The project has a description (maximum 500 words) of why the Project is deserving of a Commendation Award.	Yes No Other: <FREE TEXT>
The project has evidence supporting the project (e.g., link to the project’s website, link to the repository, teaching materials, etc.).	Yes No Other: <FREE TEXT> If ‘Yes’: Note the type of evidence provided (e.g., link to the project’s website): <FREE TEXT>
Has short blurb for SORTEE website and promotion.	Yes No Other: <FREE TEXT>

Additional comments from reviewer: <FREE TEXT>.

If all required administrative criterion = Yes → proceed to Stage 2.

If any required criterion = No → nomination is ineligible → notify the nominator.

Stage 2: Project Eligibility Criteria

Project eligibility criteria are used to evaluate:

A. relevance to Eco-Evo fields, and

B. Open Science contribution.

A. Relevance to Eco–Evo Fields

Is the project at least remotely related to the fields of ecology and/or evolutionary biology or closely related fields with implications for ecology and/or evolutionary biology (e.g. systematics, paleontology, marine biology)?

Criterion	Evaluation
The project at least remotely relates to ecology, evolutionary biology, or closely related fields.	Yes Needs clarification No

List the field of ecology and/or evolutionary biology or closely related fields: <FREE TEXT>.

If Relevance to Eco–Evo Fields = Yes → proceed to the next criterion.

If Relevance to Eco–Evo Fields = Needs clarification → email the nominator.

If Relevance to Eco–Evo Fields = No → nomination is ineligible → notify the nominator.

B. Open Science contribution

Does the project foster Open Science values or practices (e.g., transparency, robustness, accessibility, or improving research culture or systems) beyond what we consider standard research outputs (a single research article with shared data or code without a sustained effort, resource, or activity designed to foster Open Science practices within the Eco-Evo community)?

Criterion	Evaluation
The project has clear Open Science contribution	Yes Needs clarification No

Describe the Open Science contribution (e.g., collaborative community project hosting the largest standardised, publicly searchable database of animal social behaviour): <FREE TEXT>.

Additional comments on Open Science Contribution from reviewer: <FREE TEXT>.

If Open Science contribution = Yes → proceed to writing a project nomination for the Board.

If Open Science contribution = Needs clarification → email the nominator.

If Open Science contribution = No → nomination is ineligible → notify the nominator.

Any remaining comments from the reviewer: <FREE TEXT>.