This year, we are resurrecting an old conference tradition with some new twists. We will be recognizing one outstanding submission with the Best Paper Award, which will be determined by a panel of judges prior to the start of the conference.
Purpose: The purpose of the Best Paper Award is to recognize and celebrate excellent work produced by members of our community.
Eligibility and Entry: Any student member of CGSA with an accepted abstract will be eligible to enter their finished conference presentation into the running for a Best Paper Award. Members of the CGSA Executive are not eligible for the award. To have your work considered for the Best Paper Award, simply indicate your interest on the form that all participants will use to upload their recorded talks. Please note that despite the name, a full paper is not required for consideration.
Prize: The winner of the Best Paper Award will receive 500.00 CAD, in addition to the recognition contained by the award itself, and will be highlighted on the CGSA website.
Criteria: Beyond being eligible only to student members, the Best Paper Award will be judged according to the following criteria:
N.B. We have aimed to assemble a panel of judges who will be equally capable of judging work in either English or French, so please do submit your work even if it is not fully in English!
|Engagement with Conference Theme||The paper makes little to no reference to the conference theme, or any references feel tacked on.||The paper engages with the conference theme to an extent, but these connections are limited or left implicit.||The paper’s engagement with the conference theme is clear and the author makes those connections explicitly.|
|Quality of Argumentation||It is difficult to discern the paper’s overall argument, either because it is inadequately supported or because it is non-existent||The paper’s overall argument is discernible, but has notable flaws or oversights which hamper its ability to be convincing.||The argument(s) presented in the paper are clear and well-made. There are few to no areas in which further evidence or reflection was needed.|
|Originality and Impact of Ideas||The ideas expressed in the paper are already well-established within the field(s) that the author is engaging. As such, the paper is not likely to impact ongoing conversations.||The paper brings some new ideas to the table, but does not present these ideas in a way that is likely to alter how research in the area is done. The paper may have a modest impact on work that is in the same area.||The ideas presented in this paper are fresh and it is clear that it makes meaningful contributions to ongoing conversations, or else starts entirely new ones. This paper has the potential to significantly impact the field.|
|Positioning and Citational Practice||The paper seems to exist for its own sake and presents its ideas without wider consideration of related conversations. There are little to no citations, and those that are present fail to account for a significant amount of relevant scholarship.||The author has made a reasonable effort to reflect on the significance of this work against the larger backdrop of the field, but there are notable perspectives missing from their analysis in ways that adversely impact the overall argument.||The author positions themselves within their work to the extent that is warranted and has cited a rich array of sources from scholars whose work relates to their own in a variety of ways.|
|Clarity and Quality of Presentation||The presentation (slides and/or script) is disorganized or unclear in ways that actively hinder one from understanding the author’s argument. The audio/video quality is very poor and there are no subtitles||The presentation’s slides or the script are well done, but some elements needed work. The overall argument is fairly clear but could have been organized better. The audio and video quality are mostly a non-issue.||The script is engaging and clear. The slides are well-made. There is adequate signposting throughout, which allows the listener to follow along easily. The presenter included subtitles and the audio/video are clear.|