Thank you to everybody who submitted a nomination to our recent round of the DMT Academy Excellence Awards. The many examples of excellent work in ageing-related research were inspiring to read. After careful consideration, we have now informed nominees whether they have been invited for an interview – the success rate at this stage was 23% for the Rising Star category and 33% for the Senior Leader category.
Nominations were assessed against a range of criteria set out in the award guidelines and we’ve collated some general feedback on the key themes that emerged from the applications that were not selected for the next stage:
- In general, the strongest nominations presented a cohesive narrative that clearly demonstrated the nominee’s dedication to ageing-related research and alignment with our key research principles. Some submissions, while rich in achievements, publications and activities, didn’t effectively connect these elements. Focusing on well-developed examples, rather than lists, proved to be more compelling.
- The assessment panel sought nominations that accurately represented the nominee’s achievements, without underplaying (or overstating) their contributions. The strongest nominations let the nominee’s achievements shine and provided sufficient detail on the nominee’s contribution or extent to which they had influenced team-based achievements, for example.
- In particular, it was sometimes hard to determine whether the nominee had truly led a particular activity / initiative etc., or instead had been involved as part of a wider group. Either was acceptable, but overall we were looking for clarity on the nominee’s specific contribution.
- While most nominations clearly articulated the nominee’s research focus, the strongest nominations also highlighted the difference the nominee’s work had made, such as influencing policy and/or practice, or advancing understanding within their field. It’s worth reiterating that these impacts could have been at a local, regional, national or international level. The nominations that stood out were those that effectively articulated these contributions by providing specific, concrete examples that underscored the lasting value and broader significance of the nominee’s efforts.
- Relatedly, the panel recognised that influencing guidelines, policy and practice can be more challenging in certain research areas / contexts, and this was taken into consideration during the shortlisting process.
- Some nominations did not fully align with the information and guidance provided in the award guidelines and nomination form. For instance, in some cases, the uploaded support letters repeated details already covered in the main nomination form, rather than focusing on the nominee’s commitment to our key principles of ageing-related research. On other occasions, the form was not filled out appropriately and the responses did not adequately address the questions posed, and of course, the panel could only assess the nominee’s achievements based on the information provided in the nomination form. Whilst a basic point, it is also important to follow the stated word count and submission requirements (e.g., submitting only one supporter/seconder letter). Furthermore, having an up-to-date ORCiD profile is helpful for the assessment panel, as this can provide further information in support of the nominee’s achievements without taking up too much space on the form.
- In a few instances, we noticed the use of the terms “elderly” and “subjects”. Whilst we didn’t factor this into our assessment, we thought it would be helpful to highlight this and signpost to some useful guidance on these terms. For example, the Centre for Ageing Better’s Age-friendly communication principles advocates for the use of “older person” or “older people” instead of “elderly”. In addition, the term “subject”, used to describe someone taking part in a research study, is now viewed as outdated – with the UK government previously stating an intention to replace the term “subject” with “participant” in the legislation that underpins the regulation of clinical trials in the UK.
- Some specific points of feedback were raised with regards to our key principles for ageing-related research:
- Regarding Patient, carer and/or Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE), while many nominations highlighted the importance of sharing research findings with non-academic audiences (i.e. engagement), the strongest applications also provided concrete examples of how the nominee had meaningfully involved the public throughout various stages of the research process.
- Regarding Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), some nominations lacked focus or specificity in demonstrating how nominees had embedded EDI within their research. While the diversity of research teams is important (particularly where the nomination could articulate how the nominee had helped to support / facilitate this), nominations that provided detailed information on how EDI principles had been meaningfully integrated into the research itself were the most impactful. Future nominations should ensure they articulate the nominee’s personal contributions to EDI efforts.
- We acknowledge that meaningful PPIE and EDI can be more challenging in some research contexts, particularly in laboratory-based research. This was carefully considered during the assessment process. Some of the most compelling nominations highlighted how the nominee had overcome these challenges and made strides in these areas, often leveraging available resources and opportunities. There is a range of such resources available, for example, Parkinson’s UK, the Alzheimer’s Society and NIHR have jointly produced practical guidance on enhancing patient and public involvement in laboratory-based research.
- Often, nominations were less good at articulating the difference the nominee’s contribution to PPIE and/or EDI had made (e.g. to their research / that of other researchers, the wider field etc.) – this made it difficult for the panel to understand the end result / impact of the examples given.
- For third-party nominations, it was essential that the nominator had a strong understanding of the nominee’s work and could present a compelling case for why they were deserving of the award. The strongest third-party nominations came from nominators who demonstrated this knowledge or collaborated closely with the nominee to create a detailed, compelling submission. These nominations effectively described the nominee’s contributions, highlighting their unique strengths and providing robust evidence to support their claims.
- The Excellence Awards are held annually, and we welcome nominations from previous nominees. Where this is the case, we expect fresh perspectives and updated examples of the nominee’s work / achievements (including, but not limited to, fully revised sections of the nomination form and updated letters of support).
We appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into making a nomination, and we hope this feedback is helpful to those who were unsuccessful on this occasion. While there are some common themes in the feedback compared to the inaugural round of the Excellence Awards, you may also find it valuable to review the feedback from last year. You can read the feedback from the previous round here.
The next round of the awards is due to open in late summer / early autumn 2025, so do look out for its announcement on LinkedIn and our “Apply for funding” page.