All proposals are scored across 10 criteria. Each criterion is worth up to 6 points, for a maximum total of 60 points.
Research question is clearly defined and aligns with the theme. Proposal has a clear focus on Artificial Intelligence and future development.
Research question somewhat aligns with the theme but lacks clarity in addressing theme.
Research question is too broad, vague, and unrelated to the theme and/or fails to address theme.
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 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 7 sources, proper citations, and all sources are credible.
At least 6 sources, some credible or proper citations.
At least 4 sources, improper or non-credible citations.
No more than 9 pages without team information and citation pages.
Exceed 9 pages by 2 pages (11 pages) without team information and citation pages.
Exceed 9 pages by 4 pages (13 pages) without team information and citation pages.
Times New Roman 12, 1.5 space, 1 inch margin on all sides (automatic format).
Some formatting matches.
No format matches.
The main idea is immediately clear, focused, and easy to understand.
The main idea is present but could be clearer or more focused.
The main idea is difficult to identify or understand.
The poster presents the most important parts of the proposal clearly and concisely.
Most information is relevant, but some content could be shortened or better selected.
The poster includes too much, too little, or mostly irrelevant information.
The poster has a clear, logical structure that guides the reader through the proposal.
The structure is understandable, but some sections do not flow smoothly.
The information is poorly organized and difficult to follow.
Figures, diagrams, charts, or images are clear, relevant, and improve understanding.
Visuals support some of the content but could be clearer or more relevant.
Visuals are missing, unclear, or unrelated to the content.
Headings, sections, and key points are clearly distinguished and easy to locate.
Some hierarchy is present, but important information does not always stand out.
Headings and key information are difficult to distinguish.
Text and visuals are well balanced, creating a clear and engaging layout.
The balance is reasonable, with some crowded or underused areas.
The poster is overcrowded, too empty, or heavily dependent on text.
Content, labels, terminology, and formatting are accurate and consistent throughout.
The poster is generally accurate, with a few minor errors or inconsistencies.
The poster contains several errors or inconsistencies in content, labels, or formatting.
The poster is original, polished, and appropriate for a professional academic setting.
The poster is presentable but has limited creativity or professional polish.
The design appears unfinished or unsuitable for an academic competition.
The team answered the questions accurately, concisely, and confidently, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the project with minimal or no errors.
The team answered some questions correctly but responses were partially accurate, incomplete, or lacked sufficient clarity.
The team was unable to answer the questions correctly and demonstrated limited understanding of the project.
The evaluation criteria for the Final Round will be announced after the Semifinal Round.