The below article was written by the Biophysical Society's Committee for Professional Opportunities for Women to share their advice for writing strong letters of reference for award nominations.

Writing strong, supportive, and honest letters of reference for your scientific colleagues is an important skill, as these letters are critical parts of hiring, promotion, and recognition. If you choose a career in research and/or education, you will likely be asked to write many such letters. This article addresses writing nomination and support letters for awards, specifically following the process for the Biophysical Society (BPS). While many details differ between a nomination or support letter for an award and other letters, such as letters of evaluation for a tenure promotion, highly effective letters share a lot of commonalities.

The purpose of the nomination and support letters is to help the Awards Committee understand why the nominee is well-suited and highly qualified for the award. The Committee will (hopefully) have a complete and up-to-date CV that will play an important part in their deliberations. However, in the absence of informative letters, the Committee is forced to rely on just counting the numbers of publications, citations, courses developed, etc. from the CV, and the resulting decisions are unlikely to identify the most deserving candidate. This is especially true for the scientifically diverse BPS, where different fields have drastically different publication and citation rates. 

You should agree to write a letter of support only if you can honestly write a strong and supportive letter. There may be many reasons why you cannot provide such a letter, and you should not feel guilty about saying “no.” A typical and very good reason for declining is that you do not know the candidate well enough. The process will be better served by support letters from those most familiar with the nominee. While there is a perception that the “most famous” scientists provide the most impactful letters, this notion is not generally true. A well-written letter that adds depth, context, and concrete examples of impact is almost always more powerful, regardless of the letter writer. 

There is no standard format for nomination or support letters, but effective ones generally encompass a few key points. Start by stating who you are nominating and for what award. Refrain from starting with an over-the-top statement about how this nominee is the best candidate for the award (ever!). That sort of boasting is typically not well-received when the committee is reviewing several highly qualified candidates. You should include something about yourself at the outset—just a couple of sentences are enough to convey why you are familiar with the field and the candidate. You should also briefly describe how you know the candidate and for how long. Typically, these three pieces form the first paragraph, and the rest of the letter should provide in-depth examples of the nominee’s impact.  Describe a few specific examples with enough detail to show the depth of the nominee’s impact, but your letter should do so in less than two pages. Awards Committee members have a lot of packets to read in a short period of time, so it is crucial to focus on the most impactful aspects of the nomination. The reviewers will have two additional support letters, so coordinating the nomination with other writers can cover complimentary aspects, and effectively make the case for breadth of impact. From the nominee’s CV, the committee can extrapolate well-described examples to the overall record.

You should be careful not to reiterate too much of what is already obvious from the CV. You want to highlight the most impactful parts of the CV, ideally elaborating with narrative examples of the person’s impact. For example, the CV may list a new course that the person developed and may describe the content or other factual details. In this case, an effective letter would put that new course into context with the whole curriculum and discuss the impact it has had on students. Likewise, there may be a highly impactful collaborative paper on the nominee’s CV. A detailed description of how the collaboration came about, and how the work would not have been high impact without the nominee’s leadership can complete the picture for the reviewers. Make sure that your letter shines a positive light on the nominee, but it is important not to stretch the truth. There are likely members of the Committee who know enough about the nominee to spot exaggerations; inconsistencies among the letters and CV are a red flag. At the end of the letter, summarize why the nominee is well-qualified and appropriate for the award and thank the committee for their consideration. 

If you are the nominator, there are a few additional considerations. It is important to choose an appropriate award for the nomination. Beyond carefully reading the nomination criteria, look for scientific overlap with previous awardees. You will need to get the nominee’s CV. Usually the direct approach is easiest—just ask for it. There are many reasons that people ask for CVs, and they are all potentially good, so folks will generally just send it to you. You can choose to tell the nominee or not—there is not a consensus on which is better. Some people prefer to tell the nominee and others do not. Aside from the nomination letter, the most important role of the nominator is recruiting others to provide support letters. This choice is important, and diversity of opinion is important. Do not just get the nominee’s close friends. One strategy to find potential letter writers is to ask the nominee’s chair, division chief, or supervisor. They are likely to be supportive of the nominee and can also be good resources for context and examples. They may have previously received reference letters for the candidate and may be willing to share the names of potential supportive letter writers who already have much of what is needed to write a letter of support. Importantly, asking the chair also alerts them of the excellence of your chosen nominee, which is an added benefit.

The BPS aspires to a broad, deep, and diverse pool of award nominations. There are nearly always multiple highly qualified candidates for each award, making direct comparisons of different people’s impact subjective. The Awards Committee has a difficult job doing “apples-to-oranges” comparisons, while also balancing scientific, geographical, and membership diversity. Not every qualified candidate will receive the award, but they can be renominated each year. Certainly, those who are not nominated will not get an award!