Thank you to everybody who submitted a nomination to our recent round of the Vivensa Academy Excellence Awards. The many examples of excellent work in ageing-related research were inspiring to read.
After careful consideration, we have now informed nominees whether they have been invited for an interview. Nominations were assessed against a range of criteria set out in the award guidelines. Much of the feedback echoed themes from previous years, so we strongly encourage nominees to review the feedback posts from the 2024 and 2025 rounds.
Here we have collated some general feedback on key themes that emerged from nominations for this round that were not selected for the next stage.
Feedback for the Rising Star award:
- For some nominations it was sometimes difficult to determine whether the nominees had fully developed a track record of independent ageing-related research. While early achievements were often impressive, the strongest nominees highlighted their rising trajectory in ageing-related research by clearly articulating how they led, shaped or directed their work (e.g. by showing how their contributions stood apart from the activities of their supervisors / collaborators etc.).
- Similarly, many nominees were involved in large consortia, networks or multidisciplinary teams, which the panel welcomed. However, it was not always clear what the nominee personally led or initiated. Stronger nominations specified the nominee’s role within collaborations, distinguishing leadership, initiation or intellectual contribution from participation alone.
- In some cases, the ageing-related nature of the work was not consistently or convincingly demonstrated. Describing a topic that can affect older people was not always sufficient. Where the work being highlighted could be of relevance to a wider population, it was important to evidence how the ‘gerontological lens’ was applied (e.g. how older adults / their carers etc. were involved and included in the work, how their voices have shaped the work, how ageing well was central to the work showcased etc.).
- For many nominees, there was an impressive list of activities, but the impact was not always clearly articulated. Stronger nominations addressed what changed as a result of the nominee’s work, who benefited, and how this was evidenced (e.g. metrics, uptake, influence on practice, policy or further research etc.). Where there were engagement activities (e.g. international programmes, major policy activities, public events etc.), additional detail on the outcomes and reach of these would have made the impact clearer.
Feedback for the Senior Leader award:
- Several nominations demonstrated a high calibre of scholarship, leadership and service to the ageing-related research community. However, the strongest nominations clearly articulated sustained local, national and/or international leadership in ageing-related research, with compelling evidence of influence on policy and practice. Where nominations were weaker, this was most often due to a lack of clarity around impact, insufficient evidence of leadership distinct from the nominee’s role (e.g. as a Principal Investigator) or an over-reliance on aspirational statements rather than demonstrable outputs.
- Effective leadership was often demonstrated through sustained commitment to building research capacity and a positive research culture. In weaker nominations, leadership in research culture and capacity building was often asserted rather than evidenced.
- Collaboration was a strength across many nominations, but the nominee’s contribution was not always clear. Some nomination listed extensive networks, partnerships or consortia participation without explaining how the nominee led, shaped or influenced these collaborations. The strongest nominations demonstrated senior leadership in cross-sector or multidisciplinary collaborations, showing how partnerships improved outcomes for older people, informed policy or widened the reach and impact of ageing research.
For both Rising Star and Senior Leader awards:
- There were some specific points of feedback that were raised for both categories:
- The research values letter sometimes did not address all of the outlined values or addressed them only briefly. The panel recognises that certain values may be more challenging to demonstrate depending on the research area. What the panel was particularly looking for was how nominations acknowledged and responded to these challenges and how progress had been achieved by effectively leveraging available resources and opportunities.
- Some nominations lacked focus or specificity in demonstrating how nominees had addressed issues related to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI). While the diversity of teams is important (particularly where the nomination could articulate how the nominee had helped to support / facilitate this), nominations that provided detailed information on how EDI principles had been meaningfully integrated into the research itself were particularly impactful.
- In addition, nominations were less good at articulating the difference the nominee’s contribution to patient, carer and public involvement and engagement and/or EDI had made (e.g. to their research / that of other researchers, the wider field etc.), this made it difficult for the panel to understand the end result / impact of the examples given.
- Environmental considerations were addressed inconsistently across nominations. In many cases, statements were brief, generic or focused solely on reduced travel. The strongest nominations, however, demonstrated a more thoughtful and proactive approach. These nominees provided concrete examples, such as integrating sustainable laboratory or research practices, embedding environmental principles into network activities, or contributing to institutional sustainability initiatives. They also articulated how their actions aligned with broader organisational commitments or sector-wide ambitions. The panel recognises that addressing environmental impact can be more challenging in certain areas, particularly where research designs / methodologies / community engagement limit available options.
- The panel welcomed international engagement and recognised its importance. However, in some nominations it was not sufficiently clear how international activity translated into relevance or impact for UK research, policy, practice or communities. Stronger nominations clearly articulated the links between international work and UK priorities, demonstrating how learning, capacity building, partnerships or innovation undertaken abroad informed UK-based research, policy, practice or system-level change in ageing.
- Some nominations did not fully align with the information and guidance provided in the guidelines and nomination form. For instance, in some cases:
- Support letters sometimes repeated information already covered in the main nomination form, rather than adding value by explaining the nominee’s distinct contribution, the difference they have made, and why they were nominated / nominating themselves.
- Whilst a basic point, it is also crucial to adhere to the stated word count.
- Having an up-to-date ORCiD profile was helpful for the assessment panel, as this provided further information in support of the nominee’s achievements.
- Similarly, any external links included should be functional and lead directly to the relevant evidence; broken or inaccessible links made it difficult for the panel to verify and assess claims. While the narrative was valuable, nominations were significantly strengthened when they included clear, specific examples supported by verifiable evidence and demonstrable outcomes.
We have also published the feedback for the Team Achievement nominations to the 2025/26 Vivensa Academy Excellence Awards. If you are interested, please feel free to read it here.
We appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into making a nomination, and we hope this feedback is helpful to those who were unsuccessful on this occasion. The next round of the awards is due to open in early autumn 2026, so do look out for its announcement on LinkedIn, Bluesky and our “Apply for funding” page.