All proposals are scored across 8 criteria. Each criterion is worth up to 6 points, for a maximum total of 48 points.
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.
Evidence of independent thought but lacks full innovation.
Common topic with minimal innovation or unique perspective.
Research is realistic and practical. Methodology is achievable within specified timeframes.
Research is somewhat realistic but faces minor implementation hurdles.
Research is unrealistic or impractical for the given scope.
Research addresses an important issue with potential for significant societal or medical impact.
Research is somewhat relevant but lacks clear potential for widespread impact.
Research lacks significance and addresses trivial or unimportant issues.
At least 10 sources, proper citations, and all sources are credible academic references.
At least 10 sources, some credible or proper citations missing minor details.
Fewer than 5 references, improper citations, or non-credible sources.
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.
Evidence of independent thought but lacks full innovation.
Common topic with minimal innovation or unique perspective.
Research is realistic and practical. Methodology is achievable within specified timeframes.
Research is somewhat realistic but faces minor implementation hurdles.
Research is unrealistic or impractical for the given scope.
Research addresses an important issue with potential for significant societal or medical impact.
Research is somewhat relevant but lacks clear potential for widespread impact.
Research lacks significance and addresses trivial or unimportant issues.
At least 10 sources, proper citations, and all sources are credible academic references.
At least 10 sources, some credible or proper citations missing minor details.
Fewer than 5 references, improper citations, or non-credible sources.
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.
Evidence of independent thought but lacks full innovation.
Common topic with minimal innovation or unique perspective.
Research is realistic and practical. Methodology is achievable within specified timeframes.
Research is somewhat realistic but faces minor implementation hurdles.
Research is unrealistic or impractical for the given scope.
Research addresses an important issue with potential for significant societal or medical impact.
Research is somewhat relevant but lacks clear potential for widespread impact.
Research lacks significance and addresses trivial or unimportant issues.
At least 10 sources, proper citations, and all sources are credible academic references.
At least 10 sources, some credible or proper citations missing minor details.
Fewer than 5 references, improper citations, or non-credible sources.