How to Score

  1. Open the candidate's page below to review their nomination materials.
  2. When ready, open the scoring form and submit one entry per candidate.
  3. Repeat for each candidate you are reviewing.

📋 Scoring Form: Open the 2026 BCCA Scoring Form →

Use your board member email. You can submit multiple times (one per candidate).

Check which candidates you have already evaluated →

Rubric

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 — Science Communication Quality

Score Description
21–25 Nominee is a mid-career scientist, engineer, technologist, or other professional working in the agricultural, environmental, or food sectors. Does an excellent job of communicating about science, agriculture, and food production. Willingly addresses controversial topics.
16–20 Nominee is a mid-career scientist, engineer, technologist, or other professional working in the agricultural, environmental, or food sectors. Does a good job of communicating about science, agriculture, and food production.
11–15 Nominee is a mid-career scientist, engineer, technologist, or other professional working in the agricultural, environmental, or food sectors. Does an adequate job of communicating about science, agriculture, and food production.
6–10 Nominee is a mid-career scientist, engineer, technologist, or other professional working in the agricultural, environmental, or food sectors but communicates infrequently or with limited effectiveness.
1–5 Nominee's primary role is science communication, public relations, or journalism rather than active scientific practice. Does not meet the mid-career scientist/professional criterion regardless of communication quality.

Criteria 2 — Peer Recognition & Disciplinary Contributions

Score Description
21–25 Nominee is recognized by their peers as a scientist, engineer, technologist, or other professional who has made significant contributions to their discipline or field nationally and internationally.
16–20 Nominee is recognized by peers as someone who has made notable contributions in their field.
11–15 Nominee is recognized by peers, but does not stand out for their contributions.
6–10 Nominee has limited peer recognition. Contributions to their discipline are modest in scope or impact.
1–5 Nominee has not made meaningful contributions to their field and lacks notable peer recognition.

Criteria 3 — Communication Channels & Reach

Score Description
21–25 Nominee has demonstrated their ability to communicate by two or more of the following: written material, public presentations, or the use of television, radio, or other social media to maximize impact and reach to the target audience.
16–20 Nominee has demonstrated their ability to communicate in one primary way: written material, public presentations, or the use of television, radio, or other social media.
11–15 Nominee has demonstrated their ability to communicate through other methods or on a small scale.
6–10 Nominee has made limited efforts to communicate beyond their immediate professional circle. Reach is narrow and channels are not clearly established.
1–5 Nominee has not demonstrated any meaningful ability to communicate to broader audiences.

Criteria 4 — Audience Impact & Passion

Score Description
21–25 Nominee actively demonstrates a passionate interest in communicating the importance of agriculture and food production to key audiences of policymakers, the news media, and the public. Reaches a large audience and impacts a wide range of audiences.
16–20 Nominee is interested in communicating the importance of agriculture and food production to key audiences of policymakers, the news media, and the public. Reaches a moderate audience. Impact is with more selected groups.
11–15 Nominee communicates the importance of agriculture and food production to key audiences through their career. Reaches a small audience.
6–10 Nominee shows limited interest or initiative in communicating to key audiences beyond their immediate professional setting. Evidence of impact is minimal.
1–5 Nominee has not demonstrated interest in or ability to communicate the importance of agriculture and food production to policymakers, the news media, or the public.