We are the national scholarly academy of Wales, founded in 2010. We have a Fellowship of 700 outstanding individuals, representing expertise across all academic and professional fields and beyond. We use this collective knowledge to promote research, inspire learning, and provide independent policy advice.

The Society is a Royal Charter Charity, registered charity number 1168622. You can find out more about us here: www.learnedsociety.wales.

What Does Fellowship Mean?

Election to Fellowship is a public recognition of excellence. All our Fellows are elected because they have made an outstanding contribution to the world of learning and have a demonstrable connection to Wales.

Because of the status of Fellowship, all Nominees (except for Honorary Fellows) must go through a rigorous process of assessment. The process is extremely thorough and around 50 new Fellows are admitted each year. In the Nominee role description, you can find out more about our criteria for Fellowship.

Once elected, Fellows are lifelong members, provided that they remain in good financial standing and abide by the Fellows’ Code of Conduct. Fellows are asked to contribute to the Society’s work; this may include contributing to our events, policy work, public engagement activities, governance or future election processes.

A list of our current Fellows is available here.

Equity, Diversity and Inclusion

The Learned Society of Wales has a strong commitment to equity and diversity. We strive for a more diverse Fellowship, with increased membership from people from minority ethnic backgrounds. At present, we have a particular focus on increasing nominations of women. We want to ensure the Society is welcoming, inclusive, and free of discrimination.

We encourage nominations from academia, business, the professions, the public and third sectors.
We recognise that excellence can be demonstrated within a range of career lengths or portfolios, and we do not have a set expectation of tenure or age. What is important is that nominees meet our criteria of excellence. By focusing on nominees’ achievements, professional standing and wider contributions, we aim to ensure that our Fellows are authoritative examples of the very best of Wales across all areas of learning.

Nominations are welcomed in either Welsh or English. A nomination submitted in Welsh will not be treated less favourably than a nomination submitted in English.

Fee Reduction or Waiver Policy

Subscription fees provide an important source of income for the Society and its work. However, we want to ensure that fees are not a barrier to Fellowship. Both Fellows and nominees for Fellowship may therefore apply for a fee waiver or reduction at any time.

As a nominee, you can make a pre-emptive application and we will let you know prior to nomination whether fee relief will be granted. The policy is available here. You may speak to our EDI Policy lead, the Strategic Engagement Manager at any time to discuss further if you have any questions.

Back to top

Who Is This Document For?                              

This document is intended for the following people involved in a nomination for Fellowship to be submitted to a Scrutiny Committee covering STEMM and Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences (HASS). See Appendix 2 for an overview and description of the tasks associated with each of these roles:

• Nominee
• Proposer (the main nominator)
• Informed Supporter
• Independent Assessors
• Members of the Scrutiny Committees who assess nominations

Election Process

Overview

1	Nominations submitted	2 June to 31 October 2025
2	Reviews sought for each nomination	November – December 2025
3	Nominations assessed by Scrutiny Committees	January – February 2026
4	Vice-Presidents propose shortlist to the Society’s Council	March 2026
5	Council finalises list of Nominees	March 2026
6	Fellowship votes on the Nominees	April 2026

Back to top

What Is Needed for a Valid Nomination?

A nomination is made by a Proposer, supported by a Seconder. They must both be Fellows of the Society.

The Proposer must submit all of the following documents, fully completed, before the deadline. See: https://www.learnedsociety.wales/nomination-forms-2025/.

• Nomination Form – completed and signed by the proposer and signed by the seconder
• Nominee Evidence Form – completed by the nominee with the proposer’s assistance
• Nominee’s CV – provided by the nominee; not to exceed 4 pages
• Informed Supporter Report – completed by the informed supporter, in response to the information on the nominee evidence form

Please note:

• The nomination must be kept strictly confidential between the Nominee, Proposer, Seconder and the Society.
• The Proposer should take responsibility for completion of the Nomination Form and for obtaining the supporting signatures.
• The Society will liaise with the proposer and will not enter into any communication with the Nominee about the nomination once submitted.

It is vital that the forms are completed fully and abide by any stated word limits. We will not consider any unsolicited additional materials, references or letters of support.

• The nomination must be kept strictly confidential between the nominee, proposer, seconder, informed supporter, reviewers and the Society.
• The proposer should take responsibility for ensuring that all documents are completed in accordance with this guidance and supporting signatures and agreements are obtained. It is vital that the forms are completed fully and abide by any stated word limits. We will not consider any unsolicited additional materials, references or letters of support.

Deadline for Nominations

All forms must be emailed to nominations@lsw.wales.ac.uk before 12.00 noon on Thursday 31 October. Forms received after this date, or sent to another address, will not be accepted.

We will acknowledge every nomination we receive. If you do not receive an acknowledgement within 3 days, please contact nominations@lsw.wales.ac.uk. We cannot be held responsible for nominations that do not reach us, or that arrive after the deadline.

What Happens After the Society Receives Your Nomination?

We will pass nominations, without the confidential individual circumstances forms (please see appendix 1 for more information), to the scrutiny committee selected by the proposer.

Please note that a nomination can only be considered by the scrutiny committee to which is submitted and cannot be passed to another committee in this election cycle. If a nomination is not submitted to the appropriate committee, it will be rejected by that committee and will have to be re-submitted the following year. To avoid disappointment, proposers are encouraged to seek advice via nominations@lsw.wales.ac.uk before submitting a nomination as there are 10 scrutiny committees with specific remits.

The scrutiny committee (comprised of Fellows from similar disciplines) will seek two independent reviews of each nominee. These will be obtained on the committee’s behalf by the Society’s staff. The reviews play an important role in helping scrutiny committees assess each nomination.

The scrutiny committee members read all nominations submitted to the committee, including reviews, in advance of the scrutiny meeting. Each committee member will be assigned one or more nominations for which they will act as introducing member.

The committee meets online to consider in turn all the nominations it has received, taking account of all information supplied, including reviews. The members cannot consider any information which is not contained within the nomination forms or follow hyperlinks that may be included in any of the nomination documents. The members reach a consensus by assessing the personal impact of the nominee as demonstrated by the evidence against the selected benchmarks. The committee’s recommendation, and the reasons for coming to that decision will be recorded for each nomination. This record is confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside the Society. A verbal summary feedback will be provided to nominees on request as explained in Appendix 5, section Feedback to Nominees.

The scrutiny committee will make its recommendations to the vice-presidents at a post-scrutiny review meeting, one held for HASS and one for STEMM. The Council then meets in March to receive the recommendations made by the scrutiny committees, verified by vice-presidents, and to make the final decision on which nominations to put forward to a ballot of all our Fellows.

Back to top

Next Steps After the Fellows’ Ballot

For Nominees Who Are Elected as Fellows

We will contact you by email to congratulate you on your election as a Fellow. We will invite you to be admitted formally at our AGM in May, and to attend our annual dinner.

Please note that new Fellows are required to pay an admission fee of £90. There is also an annual subscription fee of £180 (£90 for those aged over 70 on 21 May 2026). Those aged over 85 are exempt from admission and subscription fees. Invoices for your first year’s fee (including the admission fee) will be sent by 30 June 2026.

As noted on page 3, we operate a Fee Reduction or Waiver Policy for Fellows who would find fees a barrier to participation.

For Nominees Who Are Not Elected

We will contact you and your proposer to advise you that you were not elected on this occasion. You will be encouraged to seek feedback from the relevant vice-president. We strongly advise you to take this opportunity as it will assist you in submitting a nomination in the future.

You may be nominated in subsequent years, as long as your proposer submits an updated nomination using paperwork for that year’s election cycle. There is no limit on the number of times you can be nominated.

Back to top

Contact Us

Learned Society of Wales,
University Registry
King Edward VII Avenue
Cathays Park
Cardiff, CF10 3NS
Wales

www.learnedsociety.wales
nominations@lsw.wales.ac.uk

+44 (0)29 2037 6954

Back to top

Appendix 1 – Guidance Notes for Completing the Forms

Nomination Form

Except where stated, all sections of the nomination form should be completed by the proposer.

Questions 1-2 To be completed by the proposer. Please enter the full names, titles and post-nominals. You may use e-signature, insert scanned signature or type name in the signature box.

Question 3 To be completed by seconder. You may use e-signature, insert scanned signature or type name in the signature box.

Question 4 To be completed by proposer. Name the informed supporter and provide a rationale for choosing them. Note that the informed supporter is required to complete a separate form – see guidance on p.10.

Question 5 Please suggest three reviewers for the scrutiny committee to consider. You must secure their agreement in principle to act as reviewers. Please use the standard template for this contact that is available here. You can either identify potential reviewers yourself or you can ask the nominee to suggest a list of several names, from which you should choose three final ones. The nominee is not to approach any of those individuals.

Question 6 Select the most appropriate scrutiny committee to assess the nomination. See Appendix 3 for more detailed guidance.  Proposers are encouraged to seek advice before submitting a nomination as there are 10 scrutiny committees with specific remits. A nomination can only be considered by one committee, and it cannot be passed from one committee to another.

Question 7-8 Please complete and date the declaration.

NB. The form must be saved and submitted as a MS Word document, not a pdf file.

Back to top

Nominee Evidence Form

The proposer and nominee should work together on the evidence form. This provides vital information in support of the nomination. It should provide the necessary evidence:

1. To support the case for election made by the proposer and seconder, and
2. To supply the informed supporter, reviewers and scrutiny committee with the evidence to make informed judgments about claims made in the nomination.

It is particularly important that the evidence form demonstrates how you satisfy our overarching criteria of excellence by meeting their chosenbenchmarks. Please do not include any hyperlinks in the form as they cannot be considered as part of your nomination.

Further guidance on the criteria of excellence and benchmarks is available in Appendix 4.

Question 1 Enter your personal details. The declaration on the last page of the form details how we will use this information. We will not pass on your personal information (contact details or date of birth) to scrutiny committee or reviewers.

Please note: if your nomination is successful, we will reproduce the following information exactly as provided in Question 1 in our register of Fellows and in public announcements:

• Your title, name and any post-nominal letters (give middle names only if you use these publicly).
• Your job/role and institution/organisation (however, if you prefer a different affiliation to be listed, please provide it in the box below).

Question 2 Tick ‘Yes’ if you wish the Scrutiny Committee to take into account individual circumstances which have impacted on your career. This may include gaps in work, reductions in output or changes in personal circumstances.

The nature of the excellence we are looking for will always be closely related to the nominee’s lived life and experience. When assessing your nomination, the scrutiny committee is able to take into account contractual arrangements (e.g. full-time, part-time, job-share, clinical responsibilities) and any personal, family or non-academic circumstances that may have impacted your career profile or quantity of work. The standards of excellence expected will remain the same.

Factors that may be considered include, but are not limited to:

• Flexible working arrangements (e.g. career breaks, part-time working, semester/term-time working, job-sharing)
• Pregnancy, maternity, paternity, shared parental leave, adoption and surrogacy, special guardianship
• Concerns arising from equity and inclusion matters
• Caring responsibilities
• Disability, ill health (including mental health) or injury
• Circumstances related to gender identity
• Personal, family, or other non-academic circumstances that have restricted or delayed your professional career

If the circumstances are non-confidential, please note them in the text box under Question 2. If the issues or their impact are more confidential in nature, please submit a separate individual circumstances form (see p.10). This will only be shared with the chair of the scrutiny committee who will assess the impact. The details will not be shared with the other members.

Question 3 Please note our definition of a ‘connection with Wales’:

Persons resident in Wales, persons of Welsh birth who are resident elsewhere and others with a particular connection with Wales.

‘Other’ connections may include, but are not limited to, contributions to the study of Wales, to Welsh public life, or to education systems in Wales.

Question 4 In a maximum of 5 words, describe your field of activity. For example, you may list “Public Health”, “International Law”, Biochemistry”, “European Literature and Culture”, “Higher Education Leadership and Management”, “Computer Science”, ‘’Public Sector’’ and so on. If you are elected, this description will be used as a tag on our website and database, in order to identify Fellows with expertise in a particular field.

Questions 5 Please provide a short biography suitable for public-facing use. If you are elected, it will be used for the announcement of Fellows elected in 2026, as well as on the Society’s website.

Questions 6-9 You should answer these questions in the same way as in a standard CV.

Question 10 Focus on your most impactful publications and/or achievements, a maximum of 20, and explain their reach and significance. For outputs or activities carried out as a team, you should emphasise your own individual contribution. What difference has your work made? How has your own contribution helped to shape a field of research? You can either list your entries individually or you can group them into clusters if it helps to demonstrate a particular development or impact. Please avoid repeating the same information throughout the form, or duplicating the information from your CV. The outputs may include:

• Significant publications or scholarly contributions (e.g. books, refereed journal articles, chapters in books, research reports). In case of joint publications, please provide the names of all co-authors in the published order,
• Artistic outputs (e.g. performances, literary works, musical compositions),
• Reports or other contributions to government, funding bodies, international agencies, major charitable bodies or business,
• Contributions to policy or pedagogy,
• Other outputs such as software, designs, artefacts, start-up companies or patents.

Question 11 Please select only 5 benchmarks as instructed on the form. You are advised to select benchmarks carefully based on where your evidence is strongest. Appendix 4 provides more information about how we use the benchmarks to assess nominations.

Question 12 For each benchmark selected in Question 11, please provide evidence of your achievements. This section of the nomination is crucial. Only nominees who demonstrate excellent achievements satisfying our criteria are likely to be recommended for election to the Fellowship. Therefore, please ensure you evidence the extent and significance of personal influence on reach and impact of your achievements and contributions. This helps scrutiny committee assess nominations in the context of their specialty rather than in the more general context of the academic world. Appendix 4 provides examples of the kinds of achievements that may indicate this.

Question 13 Please explain how you intend to contribute to furthering the Society’s objectives.

Question 14 Please tick all options that fit well with your expertise and interests.

Question 15 This question provides an opportunity for you to give any additional information that may be helpful to the scrutiny committee. NB. This form is your only opportunity to give us such information as we will not consider any other documentation sent to us separately.

Question 16 This section is to be completed by your proposer in response to the information you have provided in this form.

Question 17-18 Please complete the declarations.

Question 19-20 Please sign and date the form. You may use e-signature, insert scanned signature or type name in the signature box.

NB. The form must be saved and submitted as a MS Word document, not as a pdf file.

Back to top

Curriculum Vitae

There is no standard format for the CV but please ensure it does not exceed four pages in total. N.B. appendices are not permitted and the font size should be not smaller than 11. The document must be saved as an MS Word document, not a pdf file.

Informed Supporter Report

This report will gather feedback from an individual known to have knowledge of the Nominee and their work.  

Question 1-2 Please provide the requested personal details and detail your relationship with, or knowledge of, the nominee. Please refer to p.13 of this document to ensure that you fulfil the criteria to be an informed supporter and can provide an objective assessment of the nominee.

Question 3 To complete this section, we ask you to refer to the nominee evidence form. On that form, the nominee has provided evidence of achievement under five benchmarks against which their nomination is to be assessed. Please refer specifically to each of this evidence to give your view on whether the nominee meets them.

Question 4-5 Please sign and date the form. You may use e-signature, insert scanned signature or type name in the signature box.

NB. The form must be saved and submitted as an MS Word document, not as a pdf file.

Back to top

Reviewer Report

The purpose of this report is to provide an additional and independent opinion from an individual known to have significant experience in the nominee’s field and thus assist the scrutiny committee members in assessing the quality of the evidence supplied in the nomination.

Question 1-2 Please provide the requested personal details.

Question 3 Please explain whether you know the nominee and in what capacity. We request reviews from individuals sufficiently distanced from the nominee to be able to provide an objective review.  If you are unsure whether you may have a conflict of interest, please refer to p.12 of this document to ensure that you fulfil the criteria to be a reviewer or contact us for clarification.

Question 4 Tick the box that, in your view, most appropriately describes the nominee in relation to our election criteria. Our scrutiny committee will consider this alongside your answer to Question 5.

Question 5 Please provide a rationale for the assessment given in Question 4. To complete this section, we ask you to refer to the nominee evidence form. On this form, the nominee has chosen the benchmarks against which they wish their nomination to be assessed. Please refer specifically to these benchmarks, giving your view on whether the nominee fulfils them.

Question 6-7 Please sign and date the form. You may use e-signature, insert scanned signature or type name in the signature box.

NB. The form must be saved and submitted as an MS Word document, not as a pdf file.

Back to top

Individual Circumstances Form (optional)

We recognise that individual circumstances may impact on a career. To promote equitable review, we have introduced the individual circumstances question in the nominee evidence form and encourage all nominees to use this as a way to highlight to the scrutiny committee anything that may have had an impact on their career and contributions to the world of learning and research.  We understand that this is unique to everyone, and we encourage nominees  to share anything that they would  like to be taken into consideration. 

If the information is confidential, nominees can choose to complete a confidential individual circumstances form, detailing any circumstances that may have impacted their career. They should submit the directly to the Society at nominations@lsw.wales.ac.uk and be assured that it will be treated sensitively and confidentially. We will acknowledge receipt.

The completed form is seen only by relevant staff in the Society and by the chair of the relevant scrutiny committee. The chair will assess the impact of the circumstances on the nominee’s career, and the impact, not the details, will be shared with the scrutiny committee during the meeting held to assess nominations.

There is no word count limit applied to this form.

Back to top

Appendix 2: Glossary and Guidance for the Nomination Process Roles

Nominee

The nominee is the individual seeking to be elected as a Fellow. We define a Fellow as follows:

Fellows must be persons resident in Wales, persons of Welsh birth who are resident elsewhere and others with a particular connection with Wales; in each case, having a demonstrable record of excellence and achievement in one of the academic disciplines or, being members of the professions, the arts, industry, commerce or public service, having made a distinguished contribution to the world of learning.

Criteria and measures of distinction will, of course, vary between different disciplines and areas of achievement. We measure each nominee’s achievements relative to the opportunities they have had in their career. However, in all cases we define excellence in terms of the following overarching criteria:

• Outstanding achievement (the quality of your achievements and contributions to learning and/or your field of activity)
• Professional standing (the strength of your reputation among your peers)
• Wider contributions (the impact you have made on people, institutions or wider society)

Further information about these criteria is provided in Appendix 4.

Back to top

Proposer

The proposer is responsible for completing the nomination form and submitting all the documents noted under ‘What Is Needed for a Valid Nomination?’ (p.5). The proposer works closely with the nominee to assist them in completing the nominee evidence form and set out their case for election in the strongest possible terms. The proposer is the Society’s main point of contact regarding the nomination and will be, along with the nominee, informed of the result at the end of the election process.

The proposer must be a Fellow of the Society. In each election cycle, a Fellow may act as proposer for three nominees only. This restriction is removed for nominations of peoplefrom groups that are currently under-represented in the Society, such as women and people of minority ethnic backgrounds.

To avoid conflicts of interest, a proposer must not be:

1. A chair of any of our scrutiny committees
2. A member of the scrutiny committee to which the nomination is being submitted

Related to the nominee

Back to top

Seconder

The seconder supports the nomination and completes question 3 on the nomination form.

Like the proposer, they must be a Fellow. To avoid conflicts of interest, a seconder must not be:

1. Related to the nominee.
2. A chair of any of our scrutiny committees,
3. A member of the scrutiny committee to which the nomination is being submitted,

Back to top

Informed Supporter

The Informed Supporter uses their knowledge of the Nominee to support the nomination. They are asked The informed supporter uses their knowledge of the nominee to support the nomination. They are asked to complete a separate report form and send this to the proposer before the deadline for nominations.

They do not need to be a Fellow, but should be:

• Someone who knows the work of the nominee (they may have worked with them – e.g. as a co-grant holder, co-author, supervisor or collaborator – but this is not a requirement),
• A distinguished scholar with international standing in their field.

The Informed Supporter must not be:

1. A member of the Society’s Council or of the scrutiny committee to which the nomination will be submitted,
2. Employed by or based at the nominee’s institution/organisation,
3. Related to the nominee.

The proposer, seconder and nominee may discuss appropriate people for this role, but only the proposer should contact the informed supporter and obtain their report.

Back to top

Reviewers

Each nomination will be assessed by two reviewers.

The reviewer is asked to complete an independent and objective report following receipt of a completed nomination. In the report, the reviewer will assess the nominee against our criteria of excellence and supplied evidence against relevant benchmarks.

A reviewer does not need to be a Fellow, but should be:

• A distinguished scholar with international standing in their field,
• Familiar with the field, work or standing of the nominee,
• Sufficiently distanced from the nominee to be able to provide an objective review.

They may be based outside the UK in order to aid assessment of the nominee’s international reputation.

Reviewers must not be:

1. Member of the Society’s Council, Fellowship Committee or the scrutiny committee to which the nomination is submitted,
2. Currently employed by or based at the nominee’s institution/organisation,
3. A current or recent co-author or co-principal investigator with the nominee,
4. A funder or member of a funding body who is/was involved personally in a decision that funds nominee’s research,
5. A close personal friend, relative or business partner of the nominee.

The proposer will suggest three reviewers on the nomination form upon obtaining their tentative agreement to include them in the nomination form.

The relevant scrutiny committee will select the first two reviewers listed on the nomination form to request written reports. The third will be held in reserve.

Back to top

Appendix 3 – Scrutiny Committees

Please use this list to determine which scrutiny committee is appropriate for a nomination. We recognise that some nominees can claim excellence in more than one discipline or field of activity. In such a case, please select the primary discipline/field and submit the nomination to that committee. Alternatively, please contact nominations@lsw.wales.ac.uk for advice.

For a list of current scrutiny committee members, please go to: www.learnedsociety.wales/fellowship/becoming-a-fellow/scrutiny-committees

STEMM 1 Committee – Medicine and Medical Sciences

Anaesthetics

Dentistry

Human Genetics

Imaging

Medical Specialties

Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions

Obstetrics and Gynaecology

Paediatrics

Pathology

Pharmacology and Toxicology

Primary Care

Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience

Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics

Surgical Specialities

Veterinary Medicine

STEMM 2 Committee – Biology: Molecular Sciences to Ecosystems

Biochemistry

Cell Biology

Genetics

Natural Environment

Agricultural Science

Natural Environment

STEMM 3 Committee – Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy and Earth Sciences
Physics and Astronomy	Earth Sciences and Chemistry
Applied Physics	Analytical Chemistry
Astronomy and Cosmology	Catalysis
Atomic and Molecular Physics and Nanotechnology	Chemical Biology and Medicinal Chemistry
Biophysics	Climate and Atmosphere
Computational Physics	Earth Materials
Condensed Matter Physics	Earth Observation
Medical Physics	Earth Resources and Geo-engineering
Optics and Lasers	Earth Surface Processes
Particle and Nuclear Physics	Environmental and Soil Chemistry
Physics and the Life Sciences Interfaces	Environmental Geoscience including Archaeological Science
Plasma Physics	Inorganic Chemistry
Medical Physics	Materials Chemistry
Solar System Science	Molecular Nanoscience
Other disciplines	Oceanography and Hydrology
	Organic Chemistry
	Physical Chemistry
	Solid Earth and Planetary Science
	Theoretical and Computational Chemistry
	Other disciplines

STEMM 4 Committee – Computing, Mathematics and Statistics

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Actuarial and Financial Mathematics

Algebra and Logic

Applied Mathematics

Computer Graphics, Computer Vision and Virtual Systems

Computer Networks and Mobile/Pervasive Computing

Computer Systems and Computer Engineering

Continuum Mechanics

Discrete Mathematics

Geometry and Topology

Human Computer Interaction

Information Systems and Information Retrieval

Mathematical Analysis

Mathematical and Computational Biology

Mathematical Physics

Numerical Analysis

Operational Research

Probability Theory and Applied Probability

Software Engineering

Statistics

Theoretical Computer Science and Computational Mathematics

Other disciplines

STEMM 5 Committee – Engineering

Aerospace Engineering

Bioengineering and healthcare technologies

Chemical, Process & Petroleum Engineering

Civil, Structural & Mining Engineering

Communications, Signal and Image Processing

Control, Robotics and autonomous systems

Design and Systems Engineering

Electronic Materials, Devices and Systems

Energy Systems, Renewables & Electrical Power

Engineering Leadership

Environmental Engineering

Fluid Dynamics, Ship and Marine Engineering

Industrial Engineering

Materials & Nanotechnology

Mechanical, Manufacturing, and Production Engineering

Microwave and Millimetre Wave Techniques

Other disciplines

Back to top

 Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences Committees

HASS 1 Committee – Language, Literature and the History, Theory and Practice of the Performing Arts
Language and Literature	History, Theory and Practice of the Creative and Performing Arts
Applied Linguistics	Architecture and Landscape Architecture
Celtic Studies	Creative Design
Classical Languages and Ancient History	Creative Writing
Cultural Studies	Cultural Policy and Contributions to Cultural Life
Literature in English	Dance, Theatre and Performance
Modern and Medieval European Languages and Literatures	Film, TV, Radio and Digital Media
Non-European Languages and Literatures	History of the Arts and Design
Theoretical Linguistics and Phonetics	Journalism
Wales Studies	Media Studies
Other disciplines	Music
	Planning and Urban Design
	Visual and Applied Arts
	Other disciplines

HASS 2 Committee – History, Archaeology, Philosophy and Theology
History	Philosophy and Theology
British History	Aesthetics, Ethics and Moral Philosophy
Ecclesiastical History	Biblical Studies
Economic and Social History	Epistemology and Philosophy of Science
European History	History of Philosophy and Ideas
Historic Archaeology	History of Religion
Historiography	Logic and Metaphysics
History of other Continents	Political Philosophy
History of Religion	Religious Studies
History of Science and Medicine	Theology and Philosophy of Religion
Pre-historic Archaeology	Other disciplines
Other disciplines

HASS 3 Committee – Economic and Social Sciences, Education and Law
Economics and Social Sciences and Education	Law
Anthropology, Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work	Commercial Law
Accountancy Studies	Comparative Law
Business Studies & Management Studies	Criminal Law
Economic, Human and Social Geography	European Law
Economics and Econometrics	Human Rights
Education Research and Policy	Information Technology: Law and Practice
Political Science and International Relations	International Law
Other disciplines	Jurisprudence
	Legal History
	Legal Practice and Administration of Justice
	Private Law
	Public Law
	Socio-legal Studies & Criminology
	Other disciplines

Back to top

Appendix 4 – How We Assess the Excellence of Nominations

Criteria of Excellence

All nominations must meet our three criteria of excellence:

• Outstanding achievement (the quality of the nominee’s achievements and contributions to learning and/or their field of activity)
• Professional standing (the strength of the nominee’s reputation among peers)
• Wider contributions (the impact the nominee has made on people, institutions or wider society)

Benchmarks

Nominations to the HASS and STEMM scrutiny committees are assessed against benchmarks. These are standards or reference point against which:

1. Proposers and nominees provide evidence and construct the statements made on the nomination form and the evidence form; and
2. Scrutiny committees evaluate nominees’ claims and contributions.

The benchmarks are designed to add to the consistency and transparency of the election process across all scrutiny committees.

The nominee, assisted by the proposer, should selectfive benchmarks for which their evidence is strongest and against which they claim excellence and wish to be evaluated. All benchmarks are of equal value.

Nominees and proposers must work together to complete the nominee evidence form. On the nominee evidence form, nominees are encouraged to use precise detail and state clearly their personal impact against any evidence they give in support of benchmarks. It is important to bear in mind that members of the scrutiny committee may not be from identical disciplines and it is in the nominee’s interest to explain clearly the effect and significance of their achievements. The evidence supplied under these benchmarks should demonstrate that the nominee meets the three criteria of excellence.

All the benchmarks listed below may be demonstrated at Welsh and/or international level. They cover the fields of research, scholarship, education, academic engagement, innovation and leadership:

• Discipline-based and interdisciplinary research, whether theoretical or empirical, that makes an original contribution to knowledge,
• Record of nationally/internationally significant outputs, e.g. publications in peer-reviewed journals, books by major publishers, artistic works, patents,
• Contributing to the development or renewal of the discipline/field and/or making a major contribution to the next generation of scholars by securing funding, supervising or leading researchers/research teams/research students,
• Promoting knowledge transfer of research, e.g. through intellectual property, consultancy, spin-out or start-up companies, creating networks to bring researchers together with industry,
• Significant contributions to the pedagogy of the subject area/professional practice, and/or significant scholarship/research/funding related to learning and teaching,
• Knowledge exchange: communicating and developing teaching and learning, scholarship and research for the benefit of educational sectors, professional bodies and society,
• Widening participation, engaging with learners, or supporting the development of educational strategy or operational standards of education,
• Significant academic leadership, senior level management or coordination in the tertiary sector,
• Contribution to the professional development of senior colleagues within the academic community, including mentoring, leading on training and development initiatives,
• Significant involvement in widening participation, capacity building and/or supporting/developing education in Wales and more widely,
• External engagement using academic expertise or support of social responsibility goals and activities; translating research or teaching expertise into beneficial activity or positive change in the wider community,
• Application of knowledge to improve public sector performance and quality of life by informing public policy and government or by significantly influencing the cultural, heritage or other sectors,
• Evidence of activities that promote/enhance the understanding and reputation/profile of academic work, and professional activity.

Back to top

Appendix 5 – Additional Guidance for Scrutiny Committees

The following additional guidance is for members of our ten scrutiny committees. It is provided here in order to make the election process, and the decisions surrounding it, transparent to everyone.

Confidentiality

Information and documentation on nominations for election are provided to members of scrutiny committees on a strictly confidential basis and must under no circumstances be discussed with or disclosed to anyone other than:

• Fellow members of the scrutiny committee
• Reviewers
• The responsible vice-president
• Relevant staff of the Learned Society of Wales

Composition of Committees

1. Each of the HASS and STEMM Scrutiny Committees has a core membership normally comprising the chair, vice-chair, independent member, and six other Fellows who are active or experienced in relevant fields. Role profiles and terms of reference can be found here.
2. Where a committee identifies a need for further specialist input, it may additionally co-opt one or more Fellows from the relevant disciplines.
3. To aid the scrutiny process, contact emails for each member of the scrutiny committee will be circulated to other committee members, and contact emails for each chair will be circulated to the other chairs.

Overall Length of Service

1. A Fellow should not exceed four years’ continuous service on any committee – whether accumulated as a chair, vice-chair or a member.
2. Independent members may serve a term of one year initially, with a possibility to extend for two more consecutive terms subject to approval by Fellowship Committee.
3. Taking a leave of absence during tenure, irrespective of the reason, will not affect the overall length of the scrutiny committee membership tenure. 
4. Once a Fellow reaches the limit, a period of three years should elapse before they are eligible to serve on that committee again.

Appointment of Members

1. All appointments to scrutiny committees, irrespective of roles, are made by Fellowship Committee.
2. LSW staff will seek expressions of interest from all Fellows from relevant disciplines. A role description will be provided.
3. Candidates for the role of chair will be expected to have prior experience of serving on a scrutiny committee across any discipline.
4. Candidates for the role of vice-chair will be appointed from within existing scrutiny committee membership.
5. Candidates for the role of independent member will be expected to have demonstrable expertise in matters of equity, diversity and inclusion.
6. All scrutiny committees will seek to have a membership of Fellows from a wide range of subject areas and diverse demographics – see point 8 – in line with the Society’s Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Policy.  By agreement with the relevant vice-president, the general recruitment approach may be supplemented by targeted communication with Fellows who would enable the committee to fulfil this requirement.
7. If a scrutiny committee requires expertise additional to its regular membership, vice-presidents, in consultation with chairs, may co-opt one or more Fellows from any relevant discipline.
8. Fellows will be asked to submit a formal written expression of interest on standard application form. The Fellowship Committee, in consultation with scrutiny committee chairs, will be responsible for considering the information provided and agreeing which candidate to appoint based on the diversity of gender, discipline, institutional affiliation and geography.
9. One independent member can be a member of multiple scrutiny committees to facilitate consistency of approach but must identify any conflicts of interest in advance to allow re-distribution of the role and to maintain independence.
10. Each committee chair, together with the relevant vice-president will give consideration to an appropriate turnover of its members each year, to ensure a balance between continuity and new perspectives.
11. Save for exceptional circumstances, attendance at the pre-scrutiny training and post-scrutiny meeting of all scrutiny committee chairs with the relevant vice-presidents is pre-requisite for eligibility to serve as a scrutiny committee chair.

Training of Members

1. All scrutiny committee members, irrespective of their role will attend a mandatory annual training session at the start of the scrutiny process. Additionally, chairs, and vice-chairs when necessary, will attend another brief training session which will be an extension to the session attended by all scrutiny committee members. The extended session will cover the responsibilities specific to chairing.  
2.  The annual training session will include: 

• Understanding of the scrutiny process 
• Understanding of the committee’s role 
• Understanding of individual roles 
• The Society’s commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion 

Conflicts of Interest

1. The Society is committed to ensuring that its decisions and decision-making processes are, and are seen to be, free from personal bias and do not unfairly favour or disfavour any individual connected with the Society.
2. The Society has a duty to ensure that every committee member understands what constitutes conflict of interest, and that they have a responsibility to recognise and declare any conflicts that might arise for them.
3. Conflicts of interest can be defined as:

“a set of circumstances that creates a risk that an individual’s ability to apply judgement or act in one role is, or could be, impaired or influenced by a secondary interest”.

4. To reduce the risk of conflicts of interest in the nomination process: 

• A vice-president cannot be proposer, seconder, informed supporter or reviewer of any nomination.
• A scrutiny committee chair may not be proposer, seconder, informed supporter or reviewer of nominations to any committee. 
• A scrutiny committee member may not be proposer, seconder, informed supporter or reviewer of a nomination for the committee on which they serve. 
• A scrutiny committee member may not be a member of the Society’s Council.
• An independent member may not be proposer, seconder, informed supporter or reviewer of nominations to any scrutiny committee they attend.
• Independent members may not be a ‘discipline’ member of any scrutiny committee and must not have been elected via the committee they attend. 

5. To reduce the risk of conflict of interest within scrutiny committee meetings:

• Independent members will assess the list of nominees for their scrutiny committees in advance to identify any conflict of interest. This is to ensure that independent members are able to stay for the entirety of the meeting and do not need to leave during a meeting for a reason of conflict of interest.
• If the chair has a conflict of interest with a nomination, the vice-chair will lead the evaluation of that nomination. 
• In advance of each committee meeting, the chair will allocate nominations to each committee member to introduce at the meeting. Members will declare any conflict of interest so that the chair can re-assign the nominations. 
• In all cases, conflicted member(s) may not participate in, or influence, the decision or any vote on the relevant nomination; they must also withdraw from the meeting during such votes. 
• A committee member who is conflicted for any reason cannot be assigned that nomination to introduce at the scrutiny meeting.
• A committee member who knows a nominee must not add any personal knowledge about that individual that is not declared on the nomination forms but may comment on what is written on the nomination form if invited to do so by the chair. 
• At each committee meeting, the chair will call for declarations of interest again before members begin to review nominations. Members must declare any interests of the type covered above, or any other relevant interest in a nomination.

Allocation of Nominees to Scrutiny Committees

1. The staff team will allocate each nomination to the scrutiny committee selected by the proposer on the nomination form.
2. Nominations are not cross-referred and shall be rejected by a scrutiny committee if not submitted to an appropriate committee.
3. Following feedback, if a proposer wishes an unsuccessful nomination to be considered again, they must resubmit it using the correct forms for that year’s election cycle, before the normal deadline; only then will it be allocated to a scrutiny committee.

Reviewers Process

1. A review of each nomination will be carried out by two reviewers. See p.13 for a description of this role.
2. The Society may contact reviewers named on the nomination form but may also contact others as decided by the chair in consultation with the relevant vice-president. Proposers will secure prior agreement in principle from the reviewers they suggest in the nomination form.
3. The staff team will request reviews from the first two reviewers listed in the nomination form. In the case of a negative response or no response by the due date, the same request will be made of the third reviewer listed in the nomination form.
4. Using the standard report form, each reviewer will:
   a) Place each nomination in one of the two categories:
   – Meets criteria for election, or
   – Does not meet criteria for election
   b) Provide a thorough rationale for their decisions, explicitly referring to the nominee evidence form and making specific reference to the benchmarks against which the nomination is to be evaluated.
5. If a scrutiny committee cannot secure two reports per nominee, the chair will consider whether the committee can evaluate the nominee without one. This should not be taken as a sign of the quality of nomination.

Assignment of Nominees to Scrutiny Committee Members

The chair of each scrutiny committee will assign each received nomination to a committee member for initial review. This member will:

1. Declare conflict of interest, and
2. Introduce the nominee to the rest of the committee when it holds its formal meeting highlighting main points for consideration.

Decision-Making

1. Prior to considering nominations:
   1. All scrutiny committee members, irrespective of their role, will attend a mandatory annual training, usually held in December, on the scrutiny procedures, changes made to that year’s election process and on equality, diversity and inclusion within the scrutiny process. On the same occasion, the training session will be extended for chairs, and vice-chairs when necessary, to cover tasks specific to chairing scrutiny meetings.
   2. Chairs and independent members may meet on a separate occasion to discuss any confidential individual circumstances forms received or to agree how the independent member can support the committee’s work. 
2. During January and February, each scrutiny committee will meet to consider the nominations allocated to it and to agree the list of nominees to be recommended to Council for admittance to Fellowship.
3. The quorum for all committees is six members and must include: a. chair or vice-chair, and b. independent member.
   1. If it is known in advance that a committee will not be quorate, the chair and the relevant vice-president will agree whether to identify another Fellow from a similar discipline or a former scrutiny committee member to ensure quorum.
   2. If a committee fails to reach quorum on the day of the meeting, the meeting will not proceed as the scrutiny process would not be equitable. The meeting is to be re-arranged.
4. During the meeting, committee members will consider nominations in the context of related reviewers’ and informed supporter reports and assess the nominations against the overall criteria of excellence and the nominee’s selected benchmarks (Appendix 4).
5. The independent member will provide oversight and support in the following areas:
   1. Conflict of interest and how it is managed,
   2. Equitable time allocated to each nomination,
   3. Language used and any unconscious bias that may occur,
   4. Ensure that due recognition is given to nominees who have declared individual circumstances,
   5. Consistency of approach,
   6. Any non-evidence-based judgements or decisions,
   7. Any new evidence brought in from experience rather than the nomination forms,
   8. Any decisions that may rely entirely on the information written in the forms,
   9. Quality and depth of feedback that is collated for any nominees not recommended for Fellowship.
6. Committees are asked to compile two lists during their meeting:
   1. A list of nominees meeting all criteria of excellence and therefore recommended for election, and
   2. A list of those who do not meet the criteria for election.
7. At the end of the scrutiny meeting, chair and independent member alone will complete their brief reports for the vice-presidents. Vice-presidents will use this information for briefing Special Council to give them oversight and confidence in the process.
8. Vice-presidents will hold a post-scrutiny meeting with all chairs and independent members to discuss the process, any concerns that arose, align their deliberations to ensure consistency and discuss lists of nominees for submission to Council. This will be done in three separate meetings, one each for ICAP, HASS and STEMM.
9.  The Society’s Council will receive the scrutiny committees’ recommendations at its Special Council meeting in March. The approved list of nominees will then be submitted to a formal ballot of the Fellowship.
10. The presumption is that all nominees recommended for election will normally be approved by Council for inclusion on its list.
11. There is no limit on the number of new Fellows elected each year.
12. The lists produced by the scrutiny committees and the vice-presidents must be treated as strictly confidential.

Process for Raising Concerns

Members of scrutiny committees should raise any concerns during the meeting to enable discussion and resolution. Should concerns not be addressed in a satisfactory manner at the scrutiny meeting, 

• ordinary members and vice-chairs should write to the chair, and
• chairs and independent members should write to the relevant vice-president.

In each of these instances, members will copy the Fellowship officer into their emails. Concerns raised in this manner will be discussed at respective post-scrutiny meetings of vice-presidents with chairs and independent members. 

Feedback to Nominees

1. At each scrutiny committee meeting, feedback should be collected for all nominees.
2. To ensure feedback is collected in a consistent and evidence-based manner, the committee chair will complete a short report form. This will then be retained by the staff team for use by the vice-presidents.
3. Proposers of nominees who are not recommended for election will be notified of the outcome by the President or Chief Executive before the Fellowship ballot and requested to keep this information confidential until the conclusion of the ballot.  
4. Proposers of nominees who are successful will be copied into the communication from the President to the nominee notifying them of their election following the ballot. 
5. Nominees who are not elected will be notified of the outcome by the President on the conclusion of the Fellowship ballot. Their Proposer will be copied in so that they are aware their nominee has been informed. Nominees will be encouraged to seek feedback on their application.   
6. Only the vice-presidents may give feedback to nominees that are not elected. Feedback will be provided directly to nominees to avoid second-hand messages and inconsistency in the transmission of often sensitive and sometimes confidential issues.

Back to top