Student Awards Offered by the Parasitology Section
The Parasitology Section offers awards to encourage and recognize
outstanding student research in the discipline of parasitology, and the
communication of that research at the Annual Meeting.
The Murray Fallis Prize is a $300 prize awarded for an outstanding
student presentation at the annual meeting. It is funded through the Murray
Fallis Fund of the Zoological Education Trust.
Eligibility
- The individual must be a student (i.e. registered in an undergraduate or
graduate degree program) at the time the abstract is submitted.
- The student should indicate at the time they submit their abstract that
they want to be considered for a Parasitology Section Student Award, although
the judges may at their discretion decide to evaluate all presentations they
identify dealing with parasitology.
- The student must present an oral paper at the Annual Meeting describing
research conducted on any aspect of Parasitology.
- Under some circumstances, poster presentations may also be considered.
- Presentations of what are, essentially, research proposals will not be
eligible for awards.
- The student (or major professor) must be a member of the Canadian Society
of Zoologists and is encouraged, but not required, to be a member of the
Parasitology Section.
Selection of Prize Recipients
- Presentations are evaluated and ranked by a panel of judges (judging
criteria are indicated below).
- The Murray Fallis Prize is normally awarded for the top-ranked oral
presentation. The judges may at their discretion elect to include poster
presentations in the competition, depending on the number of presentations
submitted to a particular annual meeting.
- Under some circumstances, other prizes may be available, and awarded either
to the second ranked oral presentation or top-ranked poster presentation at the
discretion of Parasitology Section Council. Regardless, the Fallis Prize shall
be considered the top award of the Section.
- The decision of the judges is final.
Judging Criteria
Judges will evaluate the scientific content, originality and quality of the
research being presented, as follows:
- Was the written abstract comprehensive and did it reflect the actual
presentation?
- Did the topic of the presentation have scientific merit and was it placed
in perspective, with clearly outlined objectives?
- Was the methodology appropriate for the objectives, and was it explained
appropriately for oral or poster presentation?
- Were the results clearly presented and were they relevant to the stated
objectives?
- Were the results interpreted and discussed in a manner appropriate to oral
or poster presentation, and were the discussion and conclusions relevant to the
stated objectives?
- Was the student able to respond reasonably to questions?
Judges will also evaluate the quality of the presentation itself. For oral
presentations, the organization, clarity, quality of visual aids,
professionalism, time limit, pace and audibility will be considered. For poster
presentations, organization, clarity, visual impact and professionalism will be
considered.