For use by scientific reviewers, session chairs, and poster award juries
Scoring Method
- Each criterion is first graded out of 10. The evaluation system then converts this grade into a weighted score according to the criterion’s assigned % weight.
- Converted weighted score = (Reviewer grade / 10) x criterion % weight.
- Example: If a criterion has a 20% weight and receives a grade of 8/10, the converted weighted score is 16 weighted points. This contributes 16 points to the final score out of 100.
Scoring Scale (1-10)
- 9-10: Exceptional
- 7-8: Excellent / strong
- 5-6: Good / sufficient
- 3-4: Needs improvement
- 1-2: Weak
Detailed Evaluation Criteria
1. Scientific rationale and research question (20% weight)
- Clearly presents the scientific background and rationale
- Defines a specific research question, objective, hypothesis, or design problem
- Explains the knowledge gap or practical problem addressed by the work
- Frames the study in a way that can be understood by an informed scientific audience
2. Originality and scientific contribution (15% weight)
- Demonstrates novelty, creativity, or a meaningful extension of previous work
- Explains the contribution of the study to science, health, technology, society, education, policy, or practice
- Shows why the findings or proposed approach matter beyond a routine report
- Highlights innovation without overstating the results
3. Study design and methodological quality (20% weight)
- Uses a study design, experimental model, data source, sampling strategy, or analytical approach suitable for the stated objective
- Describes methods with enough detail to judge scientific rigor and reproducibility
- Includes appropriate controls, comparison groups, validation steps, or quality checks where relevant
- Addresses ethics approval, informed consent, data protection, safety, or responsible research issues where applicable
- Acknowledges main limitations or assumptions
4. Data analysis and interpretation (15% weight)
- Presents results accurately and clearly.
- Uses appropriate statistical, qualitative, computational, or design-based analysis methods.
- Keeps factual findings separate from interpretation, speculation, or possible applications.
- Interprets the results in direct relation to the research question.
- Avoids unsupported claims.
5. Conclusions, relevance, and impact (15% weight)
- Provides conclusions that are directly supported by the data or analysis.
- Explains the scientific, clinical, technological, environmental, educational, or social relevance of the work.
- Identifies realistic next steps, applications, or future research directions.
- Communicates the main take-home message(s) clearly.
6. Poster organization and visual design (15% weight)
- Uses a logical structure, such as Background, Objective, Methods, Results, Conclusion, and References.
- Guides the reader through the poster with a clear visual flow.
- Uses figures, graphs, tables, or diagrams that are readable, well-labeled, and necessary.
- Keeps text concise and avoids overcrowding.
- Uses fonts, contrast, spacing, and layout that support readability from a reasonable viewing distance.
Suggested Rating Scale
| Final Converted Score | Interpretation |
| 90-100 | Excellent: award-level posters with strong scientific merit and clear communication. |
| 75-89 | Very good: strong poster with minor weaknesses. |
| 60-74 | Good: scientifically acceptable but needs improvement in clarity, design, analysis, or presentation. |
| Below 60 | Needs substantial improvement: major limitations in scientific content, structure, communication, or presentation. |