Scoring Form: Open the 2026 CLAA Scoring Form →
Use your board member email. You can submit multiple times (one per candidate).
Each candidate is scored on 4 criteria, 1–25 points each (100 points max).
Score guide: 21–25 = excellent · 16–20 = good · 11–15 = adequate · 6–10 = below standard · 1–5 = does not meet criteria
Criteria 1 — Career-Long Contributions to Agricultural Science
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 21–25 | Nominee has made exceptional, sustained contributions to agricultural science, policy, or technology over a career spanning decades. Work has demonstrably advanced the field nationally or internationally. |
| 16–20 | Nominee has made notable contributions to agricultural science over a substantial career. Work is recognized as meaningful within their discipline. |
| 11–15 | Nominee has made solid contributions to their area but with limited scope or duration across their career. |
| 6–10 | Nominee has contributed to agricultural science but work is not clearly distinguished or sustained over a career. |
| 1–5 | Nominee's contributions do not clearly demonstrate career-long dedication to or advancement of agricultural science. |
Criteria 2 — Leadership & Influence in the Field
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 21–25 | Nominee has demonstrably shaped their field through leadership in research institutions, policy bodies, professional organizations, or international initiatives. Peers point to their influence as formative. |
| 16–20 | Nominee has held meaningful leadership roles and influenced the direction of their field in notable ways. |
| 11–15 | Nominee has taken on leadership roles with moderate influence on their discipline. |
| 6–10 | Nominee has limited evidence of leadership or influence beyond their immediate institution or research group. |
| 1–5 | Nominee does not demonstrate meaningful leadership or influence in the broader agricultural science field. |
Criteria 3 — Engagement Beyond the Field
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 21–25 | Nominee has consistently translated scientific expertise into impact with policymakers, industry, the public, or the international community. Clear evidence of direct influence on policy or practice. |
| 16–20 | Nominee engages meaningfully beyond their immediate field through public communication, policy advising, or industry collaboration. |
| 11–15 | Nominee demonstrates some engagement beyond their immediate field but on a limited scale. |
| 6–10 | Nominee has minimal engagement with stakeholders outside their immediate research environment. |
| 1–5 | Nominee has not demonstrated meaningful engagement with stakeholders outside their immediate research environment. |
Criteria 4 — Legacy & Enduring Impact
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 21–25 | Nominee's body of work represents a lasting, transformative contribution. Future scientists, policymakers, or practitioners will build on their foundation. Legacy is clearly demonstrated. |
| 16–20 | Nominee's career has produced important outcomes that will likely endure. Evidence of lasting impact on the field or on those they mentored. |
| 11–15 | Nominee has had some lasting contributions but enduring impact on the field's direction is not clearly established. |
| 6–10 | Nominee's career has produced modest outcomes with limited evidence of lasting impact. |
| 1–5 | Nominee's work does not demonstrate clear, enduring contributions to agricultural science or practice. |