Criteria

1.The Award will be presented for the best research paper presented during the annual event of the
Institute

2.At least 50% of the work should not have been reported anywhere else before.

3.Clear definition of the proposed work.

4.Purpose objectives of the work and its industrial and /or academic importance of work

5.Expected benefits qualitative or quantitative.

6.Originality of approach /planning of work

7.Literature survey, quality of analysis done, nature and relevance of information collected.

8.Innovation or ingenuity in setting up of facilities for carrying out the proposed work.

9.Method of experimentation/investigation carried out. – Data collection and analysis.

10.Accuracy of the results & how logical are the conclusions – its relevance to the objectives specified
by the author.

11.The evaluation of all the eligible Research Category papers will be carried out independently by 3
peer-reviewers based on the following Criteria for Evaluation.

Evaluation Criteria

1.Nominations are invited from individuals with recommendations from

a.IIW National Council members

b.IIW Branch Managing Committee members

c.Section Head / Division Head / Head of the Institution at which the candidate is
working.

2.The technical committee or a subcommittee formulated by it will evaluate the nominations for award.

3.The evaluation committee shall be entitled to seek opinion from experts, if required.

4.The nomination should highlight one or two of the most significant contributions of the candidate.

5.The technical committee’s recommendation will be forwarded to the council for approval

6.Membership of the Indian Institute of Welding is not a necessary criterion to apply for the award.
However, the awardee must become a Life Member of the Institute after the announcement of the Award.

7.In case no suitable candidate is found, the award need not be given that year

WHY

• Definition of the work – its objective, scope and need.
• Is the purpose well defined?
• Is the work original?
• Is the industrial and/or academic significance of the work outlined?Are the expected benefits – qualitative or quantitative – described?

HOW

• Originality of concept and approach in investigating the problem – How scientific and systematic is
  the approach?
• Literature survey – Quality of survey done
• Is the nature of information collected sufficient and relevant?
• Comparison between the present and published data – Any important observations made from the
  comparison?
• Innovation or ingenuity in setting up of experimental facilities for carrying out investigations – Any
  important additional information generated from this innovative method which otherwise would not have
  been possible?

Appropriateness of the experimental/analytical methods employed. Accuracy of the results obtained? Any
better experimental methods available?

WHAT

• Data interpretation and analysis – Is the method of data analysis the most appropriate?
• How logical are the conclusions? Their relevance to the objectives specified by the author/s.
• Other findings, if any, of importance other than what was specified, as a by-product during the course
  of investigations.
• Overall style and effectiveness in paper writing.
• Evaluation Procedure

WEIGHTAGE:

WHY – 30%, HOW – 30%, WHAT – 40%

JUDGING:

• Committee segregate the papers into three categories
• Research, Fabrication and Repair
• Each paper is evaluated by three separate judges (Professors, Researchers, Welding engineers from
  various fabrication industries, consultants, consumable manufacturers etc.) for each category.
• Copies of the papers are sent to the judges.
• Their evaluation is compiled and normalised with respect to Judge’s average and the global average.
• Care is taken to avoid the judge being one of the authors of the papers being evaluated.