We are pleased to announce that the voting process has completed successfully, and the positions of the final three nominees have been agreed.
As a reminder of how we came to this point, this process has been ongoing since September, when we announced our plan for running an award and asked for individuals to volunteer to take part as judges.
- Once those volunteers were recruited, teams of 3 were formed, with 1 Informed moderator working with 2 volunteers to go through the judging process.
- The judges were given a range of practice nominations to work on, which helped them to determine how their particular team would work best together during the active judging process.
- Simultaneously, the public nominations period was open, allowing people to nominate individuals whose work they believed deserved public recognition.
- Once the nominations period closed, the judges were allocated anonymised (with names replaced by initials) nominations to judge. If any judge recognised a nominee allocated to their team, that nomination was removed from their team and swapped with another.
- The teams went through a judging period, where they reviewed and ranked their allocated nominations.
- Once all teams had completed this group judging period, the top three nominations across the teams were identified.
- These top three were then judged again, by all individual judges rather than in teams, and the result of this process has given us our top three nominations.
We are calling the nominations placed in second and third place “Honourable Mentions”. What would be third place is the First Honourable Mention of the Informed Peer Recognition Award 2017. What would be second place is the Second Honourable Mention of the Informed Peer Recognition Award 2017.
On Tuesday the text of the nominations who did not progress to the final shortlist will be published here, then on Wednesday the First Honourable Mention, on Thursday the Second Honourable Mention, and on Friday we will be announcing the first winner of the Informed Peer Recognition Award.
Below are some of the comments from the judges about the nominations they’re viewed.
“Well done to all those submitted for an award, the high quality of applications is testimony to the amazing work done by people working with libraries and information.”
“A strong field of nominees, all of whom have contributed significantly to librarianship in their respective areas. They should each be commended for their conviction and commitment.”
“I have been so impressed by the candidates and the nominators. Thanks for letting me be a part of the judging panel!”
The Informed team would like to say a public thank you to the amazing judges involved in this process. They’ve given up their free time to closely study, discuss and judge these nominations. They’ve all worked entirely remotely and online, in a flexible way, to ensure that the judging process progressed effectively. They are the reason this award was possible, and we’re indebted to them for their help.