A. Stage one
1. The four Class chairs arrange a briefing of their respective Section committee chairs to explain what is expected of the assessment phase. A timetable for the process is agreed and depends upon the number of candidates that a class has to examine. Approximately one-two weeks after the closing date for submissions, access to the nominations is given to Section committee members.
2. Whilst each class may adopt slightly differing styles for reporting of assessments, there is a common framework as follows:
3. Candidates assigned to an individual Section are assessed BY ALL MEMBERS of that Section committee, other than in cases where there is a conflict of interest (for example where a candidate has been nominated by a committee member).
4. Section committee members will use their professional expertise and experience to make a balanced judgement on the evidence that is presented, as to whether or not the candidate meets the criteria for scholarly excellence and recognition or the additional criteria for Foreign member candidates. Each candidate is then assigned a mark (or score) as follows:
Candidate exceeds the criteria for election and should be elected now – assigned score of 1
Candidate meets the criteria for election – assigned score of 2
Candidate does not fully meet the criteria for election – assigned score of 3
Candidate does not meet the criteria but shows promise - assigned score of 4
Candidate does not in any way meet the criteria – assigned score of 5
5. Section committee members submit their assessment scores (plus any comments where an average score is higher than 2 and below 4)) to the Section chair (and to Graz) for collation.
B. Stage two#
1. The Section chair is responsible for overall management of the individual committee assessments. They will make sure that a separate summary sheet is available, that contains the following (as appropriate):
- the total number of candidates that were: (a) considered and (b) proposed;
- the number of Section Committee members who voted;
- the results of the vote, including both average marks and an indication of the “spread” of marks received by each candidate. The individual marking given by each committee member to each candidate is not needed.
- a clear description of the voting method (if any) used, so that the Class chair and Class as a whole is aware, for example, of the relative value of high and low marks.
- The Class chair together with the appropriate Section committee chairs will ensure that any marginal cases, or mis-allocated or problematic cases are resolved within the Class.
2. The Section chairs will convene committee meetings to discuss the scores and resolve any marginal cases, or any candidates that require additional scrutiny or minor clarifications. 3. Section chairs will finalise their list of candidates 4. Candidates with an average score of 2 or below will be put forward for election. Candidates with average scores between 2 and three may be proposed for election following Section and Class discussion and approval.
C. Stage three #
1. The Section chairs submit their final Section lists and reports to their respective Class chair. Each Class chair then convenes a meeting, where Section chairs of each class collectively discuss their individual Section lists and a moderated, consolidated single class list of candidates is prepared for submission to the Board of trustees. There is one list per class. The Class chairs carry out a due diligence and QA process check.
2. The Class chairs present their consolidated lists to a Board of trustees meeting where a further discussion and a formal election takes place.
THE POST ASSESSMENT PHASE#
1. Elected candidates will then receive an invitation from the President to join the Academia Europaea. If they respond positively to this invitation and pay an obligatory establishment fee, new members are placed into the publicly visible membership list. Until this process has been completed candidates are not considered as elected.
2. Candidates are free to choose which Section they wish to be listed under.
3. New members are also invited to attend the next annual convocation conference of members of the Academia, at which time they will be personally recognised and welcomed.
Final comments#
The award of membership is considered to be an honour. Members should want to play an active part in the life of the Academy and therefore, scholars accepting the invitation into membership are expected [in normal circumstances] to make a regular annual payment. This contribution is to help the work of the Academy. However, the trustees recognise the variation in personal and national circumstances of members and any individual’s continued membership is not dependant on an ability to pay. Flexibility for individual circumstances is always available.
From 2026, those candidates designated as “not elected” cannot be re-nominated for a period of two years. This means that candidates not elected in the nomination period 2025/2026 cannot be nominated again until the nomination period 2028/2029.
If a candidate is re-nominated, the process is as new. Any [re-]submissions will be considered alongside all other candidates for that year. If there were any specific reasons for a rejection (for example a lack of information) the candidate can only be re-nominated when any such issues have been satisfactorily addressed and verified by the nominator(s).
Executive Secretary (Munich office)
Download the document
(last updated October 2026)
