All proposals are scored across 8 criteria. Each criterion is worth up to 6 points, for a maximum total of 48 points.
| Criteria | 6 – Proficient | 4 – Developing | 2 – Needs Improvement | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aligns with Competition Theme: Sustainable Solutions to Current Health Challenges | Research question is clearly defined and aligns with the theme. Proposal has a clear focus on sustainability. | Research question somewhat aligns with the theme but lacks clarity in addressing sustainability. | Research question is too broad, vague, and unrelated to the theme and/or fails to address sustainability. | /6 |
| Literature Review | Comprehensive review that demonstrates thorough understanding and well-integrated research. | Some content is well-researched and/or somewhat synthesized. | Content is not well-researched and/or poorly synthesized. | /6 |
| Method / Technical | Well-designed experiment with a clear, logical methodology that directly corresponds to the topic. | Some intermediate steps are missing, or the method partially aligns with the topic. | Key steps are missing, the method is unclear, or it does not align with the topic. | /6 |
| Clear Organization and Language | Proposal is well-structured, clear, and easy to understand. | Minor grammatical and/or structural issues, making the work somewhat hard to follow. | Major grammatical and/or structural issues, making the work difficult to follow. | /6 |
| Originality | Novel idea and/or unique solution. | — | Common topic with minimal innovation. | /6 |
| Feasibility | Research is realistic and practical. | Research is somewhat realistic and practical. | Research is unrealistic or impractical. | /6 |
| Significance and Relevance | Research addresses an important issue with potential for significant impact. | Research is somewhat relevant but lacks clear impact. | Research lacks significance and is trivial or unimportant. | /6 |
| Citation | At least 10 sources, proper citations, and all sources are credible. | At least 10 sources, some credible or proper citations. | At least 5 literature reviews, improper or non-credible citations. | /6 |
| Total Score (8 criteria × 6 points) | /48 | |||
Research question is clearly defined and aligns with the theme. Proposal has a clear focus on sustainability.
Research question somewhat aligns with the theme but lacks clarity in addressing sustainability.
Research question is too broad, vague, and unrelated to the theme and/or fails to address sustainability.
Comprehensive review that demonstrates thorough understanding and well-integrated research.
Some content is well-researched and/or somewhat synthesized.
Content is not well-researched and/or poorly synthesized.
Well-designed experiment with a clear, logical methodology that directly corresponds to the topic.
Some intermediate steps are missing, or the method partially aligns with the topic.
Key steps are missing, the method is unclear, or it does not align with the topic.
Proposal is well-structured, clear, and easy to understand.
Minor grammatical and/or structural issues, making the work somewhat hard to follow.
Major grammatical and/or structural issues, making the work difficult to follow.
Novel idea and/or unique solution.
—
Common topic with minimal innovation.
Research is realistic and practical.
Research is somewhat realistic and practical.
Research is unrealistic or impractical.
Research addresses an important issue with potential for significant impact.
Research is somewhat relevant but lacks clear impact.
Research lacks significance and is trivial or unimportant.
At least 10 sources, proper citations, and all sources are credible.
At least 10 sources, some credible or proper citations.
At least 5 literature reviews, improper or non-credible citations.