I. General

Consideration and approval or rejection of technical papers for presentation at meetings or for publication with or without formal presentation constitute one of the duties and responsibilities of the Board of Directors. Because of the high professional standards of the members of the Association themselves, very few difficult decisions have been necessary in this task although there have been occasions when the Board felt it necessary to reject or request the editing of papers because they contained promotional material. Generally the subject matter of papers has been timely and stimulating and the material has been well organized and well presented.

There is one serious criticism of paper presentations that applies not only to papers of AAPT but to those of technical organizations in general. This is the poor legibility of tabular and graphic material projected on the screen and discussed during the presentation of papers. Although some experienced and thoughtful speakers have learned how to present such material clearly and effectively, it is surprising how many otherwise accomplished speakers fail almost completely in preparing effective slides. The requirements for good slides are defined and easily understood. They will be treated in detail in the following section on criteria for papers.

Instructions to Authors of Technical Papers

From the standpoint of the established policy and practice of AAPT, the following list of criteria is descriptive of the type of papers desired:
1. The subject matter should be timely.
2. Papers should, in general, present new or original material.
3. Papers should deal with technical matters as opposed to promotion of special products or equipment.
4. Papers may deal with either practical problems and their solution or with theoretical matters. In the latter case, they should be pointed toward the solution of practical problems.
5. Each paper should include a brief summary of the subject matter including concise statements of any conclusions reached.
6. Statements and conclusions should be supported by test or performance data, preferably both.
7. Authors should not hesitate to present "negative" data particularly if it shows emphatically what not to do.
8. Papers should include lists of references to related material in the technical literature.
9. The language should be simple and free of unnecessarily long complex words and technical cliches.

II. Format:

Abstract
An abstract of 500 words or fewer should precede the body of the paper. Four or five key words should also be included.

Title

• No separate title page.
• Title should be bold and centered at the top of the first page.
• Authors' names with superscript numbers should be two lines under title.
• Abstract should be two lines below the authors' names.
• Footer of first page should include authors' affiliations designated by superscript plus indicate which author made the oral presentation.

• No headers or footers should be shown, except the footer on the first page indicating authors' affiliation.

• No lists of figures or tables.
• Figures and tables should be placed in the text as close to the first reference to them as possible.
• Figure titles in bold below the Figure using upper/lower case letters.
• Table titles in bold above the Table using upper/lower case letters centered.
• Make sure scales and headings are readable in final form.

• The margins should be set at Top 1.2 in, Left, Right and Bottom 2.0 in.
• Font; "Times Roman," 12 pt.
• Left justify, but do not full justify paragraphs.
• Single space paragraph (indent first line), no lines between paragraphs.
• Do not italicize, bold or underline words within the text.
• All units in a paper must be consistently English or S.I. units. Unit symbols do not change in the plural and are not followed by periods (i.e. 3 km and not 3 kms). If an abbreviation of a unit consists of a word, use a period.
• Write out in words the numbers from one to ten unless they describe units of measures, tables or figures.
• Be consistent with any other items.

• All Text Headings in upper and lower case.
  
• Major headings to be centered, in bold, with two lines to paragraph.
  
• Sub-headings to be italics and bold with one line to paragraph.
  
• Sub-sub headings in italics followed by paragraph.
  

• References should be listed and numbered at the end of the paper in order of appearance in the text.
  
• References in the text should be bracketed ( ) unless part of a bracket, then use square bracket [ ].
  
• Author(s) names should be first name (or initials) followed by last name (e.g. Stephen Brown or B.E. Ruth).
  
• Use quotation marks to designate paper title. Do not bold, underline, or italicize. Title of journal, volume, and year should also be indicated consistently.

A. The papers will be evaluated on the basis of the following two major divisions:

1.	Material	65%
2.	Presentation	35%
		100%

B. These two major divisions are further subdivided as follows:

1.	Material
	Originality	20%
	Significance	25%
	Scope	10%
	Results	10%
		65%
2.	Presentation
	Organization of Material	15%
	Conciseness	5%
	Stimulation	5%
	Composition	5%
	References	5%
		35%

C. Each subdivision item within the two major division of "Material" and "Presentation" is to be rated on the following basis:
1. Material
Originality 20%
a) Subject Matter 10%
To what extent is the subject matter of the paper original, as distinguished from a new treatment of old material presented elsewhere, or a review of information previously published?
b) Approach 10%
What degree of ingenuity is indicated by the research, test, or construction procedure employed, and in the analysis of the data obtained?
Significance 25%
Will the paper lead to significant improvements in the technology of asphalt pavements? Is the subject matter concerned with a major item in a highly specialized field, or with a small but important item in a broad field?
Scope 10%
Do the contents of the paper cover the entire field of its particular subject, or must additional investigation of other aspects of the problem be undertaken before definite conclusions can be drawn?
Results 10%
Were positive data obtained, and do they provide adequate and valid support for the conclusion presented?

2. Presentation
Organization of Material 15%
Is the paper well organized and well illustrated (if illustrations can be used) to emphasize the important points, and to subordinate the minor or incidental features? Are the tables, graphs, diagrams, etc. simple and easily understood, or overcrowded, poorly prepared, and difficult to follow? Are the different portions of the paper arranged in logical sequence?
Conciseness 5%
Is the paper direct and to the point, covering the subject matter adequately but concisely?
Stimulation 5%
Has the text of the paper been prepared in a manner that is stimulating and challenging to all who are interested in asphalt paving technology?
Composition 5%
Has clarity of statement and a lucid style been utilized in the sentence and paragraph structure of the paper? Has simple, effective, language been employed? Can the reader follow and understand, easily and clearly, the development of subject matter presented in each stage of the paper, and in the paper as a whole?
References 5%
To what extent have source credits, references, bibliography, etc. been included?

IV. Procedure for Appraising and Selecting Papers for the Annual Award of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists
Initial Perusal
Scan all papers and place them in one of the following categories:
A. Apparently meeting the basic requirements of the award with respect to subject matter and its presentation.
B. Less impressive, or the Award Committee member is uncertain of the paper's merit because of its specialized subject matter.
C. Unworthy of further consideration.

Initial Study
Rating of all A and B papers employing the attached "Criteria for Evaluation of Papers for the Annual Award."

Initial Comparison
Each member of the Award Committee circulates the results of his/her own ratings to the other committee members. All papers unanimously falling into the C category are discarded from further consideration.

Review
Each member of the Award Committee reviews and reappraises all papers given A or B rating by all or a majority of the other committee members.

Consultation
Following this review, members will consult with each other, discuss most meritorious papers, and present arguments in favor of their individual choices.

Final Poll
After consultation, an attempt will be made to reach agreement on a final choice. If his fails, further appraisal and consultation will continue until a final poll results in selecting of the paper for the Annual Award.