Each scientists work was rated in accordance with the following criteria
Basis of rating
Recognition received: This comprised awards won and the number of scientific publications. Although the dte-cse award is aimed at highlighting unrecognised work, the credibility of the work undertaken and number of awards won was considered important. In terms of publications, the number of papers as well as citations of the work were considered.
l Impact: This was rated on the basis of the potential beneficiaries of the scientific work. Marks awarded to innovative work that benefits the most vulnerable sections of the society -- tribal people, women, rural people -- were twice as much as that awarded to work benefitting sections that are better off, like urban populations, commercial groups and governments. Universally applicable work received the same weightage as that for the weaker sections.
l Tangibility : Maximum weightage was accorded to work that led to the development of products, services as well as opening up of new areas. Work that led to only two of these received two-thirds of the marks. In case the work created only one of the three, one-third marks were awarded.
l Sustainability: This category recognised work which had long-term impact over those which had short-term effects. There were four categories: long term (over 100 years); medium term (50-100 years); short term (10-50 years); and very short term (less than 10 years). The weightage awarded was 100 per cent, 75 per cent, 50 per cent and 25 per cent, respectively.
l Institutionalisation: If a scientific work led to a pilot project and then found acceptance in the market, or led to a policy impact and the setting up of a governance system, it got twice as much weightage as a work that didn't go beyond the pilot project level. If the work was restricted to scientific research only, it got one-fourth the weightage given to a work that fell in the first category.
The work of each nominee was investigated by a primary investigator and the report was submitted to the jury. As the jury represented a wide range of experience in scientific matters, the jury's deliberations and verdict were considered as final.
We are a voice to you; you have been a support to us. Together we build journalism that is independent, credible and fearless. You can further help us by making a donation. This will mean a lot for our ability to bring you news, perspectives and analysis from the ground so that we can make change together.
Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.