COMPETITIONS GUIDELINES

AMSC SINGAPORE 2015 – COMPETITIONS

CONTENTS

S/N Item Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Summary of Deadlines 5

3. Scientific Paper Guidelines 6

4. Scientific Poster Guidelines 10

5. White Paper Guidelines 14

6. Photography Competition Guidelines 19

7. Judging Rubrics 21

2|Page
AMSC SINGAPORE 2015 - COMPETITIONS
INTRODUCTION

AMSC competitions aim to provide a platform for delegates from different chapters to showcase their
works and pursue their interest in research. This is not limited to academic studies but also social and
public health projects that are greatly beneficial to society. We hope that through this platform, we can
attract more of our young doctors to take up research and to develop their skills that can help in the
development of whichever field they may commit to in the future.

THEME: GERIATRIC MEDICINE – EMBRACING THE SILVER TSUNAMI

The Silver Tsunami refers to the prospect of an ageing population and the overwhelming increase in
both the scale and spectrum of problems associated with old age. Singapore is among the fastest
ageing populations in the world with a projected one in five people to be over 65 years by 2030. This
can be attributed in part to the improvements in medical technologies that lead to increasing lifespans
as well as the low fertility rates. These issues plague not only Singapore but also developed nations
across the world.

This Silver Tsunami poses significant challenges not only medically where chronic and age-related
diseases are increasingly prevalent, but also socioeconomically where there are increased demands for
medical services as well as social support services to support the elderly.

There are many possible subthemes that can be discussed in the scope of this conference and a short
list is recommended below. For each subtheme, the understanding, prevention, screening, diagnosis,
treatment and post-treatment options should be addressed. The scope of what the individual chapters
wish to address should not be limited to the topics as suggested below.

• Age-Related Disease: Age is a key risk factor for numerous diseases, which include but are not
limited to geriatric syndromes (e.g. falls, incontinence, and disability), metabolic diseases (e.g.
diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and obesity), cardiovascular diseases (e.g. atherosclerosis, myocardial
infarction, hypertension, and stroke), degenerative diseases (e.g. osteoporosis, osteoarthritis),
neurodegenerative diseases (e.g. Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and dementia), and cancer. Studies
can consider the role of age in the development of such diseases and how to effectively
prevent or manage such conditions and their complications.

• End-of-Life Care: Death is an inevitable end result of ageing and we must ultimately accept the
fact that regardless of medical advancements, death is unavoidable. As such, palliative care
services are crucial to ensure holistic care for patients.

• Mental Health: Research may focus on specific mental illnesses experienced by the elderly (e.g.
depression), on their general state of mental health in the face of an aging population (e.g.
anxiety issues) or on their state of psychological well-being in the face of other pre-existing
medical conditions.

3|Page
 • Access to and Affordability of healthcare: Research may focus on the availability, convenience
and ease of access to healthcare as well as any barriers to healthcare especially for the elderly
who may face financial difficulties.

• Care for elderly: Disabled elderly or those with neurodegenerative or other degenerative
conditions may need to be cared for closely by a caregiver or in a nursing home. Research may
focus on the availability and quality of such care and issues faced by caregivers.

• Others: Any other topic that is relevant to the theme of The Silver Tsunami that is pertinent and
highly relevant to the country of the team’s origin will be accepted.

FORMAT

AMSC Singapore would be organizing a total of 4 competitions as elaborated upon below. Chapters
are to participate in all of the competitions.

1. Scientific Paper Competition

2. Scientific Poster Competition
3. White Paper Competition
4. Photography Competition

Details on each competition will be given in the respective sections.

Detailed judging rubrics are given in the Appendix.

GENERAL RULES & REGULATIONS

1. Deadlines must be strictly adhered to. Submissions beyond the deadline will not be considered for
the conference.

2. Plagiarism in any form and of any amount is not acceptable. Papers or Posters with evidence of
plagiarism will be disqualified immediately.

3. Not adhering to the stated guidelines/theme could result in deduction of points or disqualification.

4. All decisions made by judges are final.

5. Organizers retain right to disqualify any entry that does not follow the criteria as listed.

4|Page
SUMMARY OF DEADLINES

SCIENTIFIC PAPER

• May 22nd 2015: Submission of abstract with full manuscript

• June 22ND 2015: Announcement of shortlisted projects

• July 8TH 2015: Judging of shortlisted projects during AMSC 2015

SCIENTIFIC POSTER

• May 22nd 2015: Submission of abstract

• June 22ND 2015: Announcement of shortlisted posters for oral presentation

• July 9TH 2015: Judging of shortlisted posters during AMSC 2015

WHITE PAPER

• May 22nd 2015: Submission of full White Paper

• July 5TH 2015: Video to be submitted to the organizing committee during registration at the
conference

• July 9TH 2015: Judging of Video and White Paper during AMSC 2015

5|Page
SCIENTIFIC PAPER
INTRODUCTION

The Scientific Paper component of the Asian Medical Students' Conference Singapore 2015 will provide
medical students from all participating countries with a great opportunity to share their research
projects which will highlight the diversity and magnitude of ongoing research developments in countries
all over Asia-Pacific, especially that driven by medical students.

Students are invited to submit an original paper on the theme of The Silver Tsunami before May 22nd
2015.

Please refer to the guidelines and selection / judging criteria below while writing the paper to ensure the
paper conforms to the specifications required for participation in this conference.

TIMELINE

• May 22nd 2015: Submission of abstract with full manuscript

• June 22ND 2015: Announcement of shortlisted projects

• July 8TH 2015: Judging of shortlisted projects during AMSC 2015

6|Page
GUIDELINES

A. PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

i. Each participating chapter may only submit 1 scientific paper

ii. Participants may only submit their project for EITHER the scientific paper OR scientific poster
competition. Any repeat entries will be disqualified from both competitions.

iii. Only the top 10 entries will be given the chance to present during the conference

iv. The number of team members collaborating on a research project is not limited. However, for the
actual presentation, each team is only allowed to have a maximum of 4 members both presenting
at the conference and participating during the Q&A session

B. PROJECT

i. Project has to be in line with the theme of the conference – ‘ Geriatric Medicine – Embracing The
Silver Tsunami’

ii. Project need not be initiated in 2014 / after the guidelines are released but must be completed
before stipulated deadline.

C. ABSTRACT

i. The abstract is a brief summary of the research project which should highlight the main purpose of
the project and background information which links it to the theme. Any available information
about the methodology or key research findings should also be included.

ii. Language: English

iii. The paper must be completely written in English. (If local words / phrases are used, English
translations must be provided)

iv. The abstract should include the following (no need for subsections):

- Project title

- Name of authors, region/institution, and contact information (e-mail address & phone number)

- Background/Introduction

- Aims & objectives

- Brief research methodology

- Key findings

7|Page
 - Scope of research and areas for future research

v. Submission Specifications

- Word limit : 200-300 words (excluding title and authors)

- Font : Times New Roman (11)

- Line spacing : 1.5

- Submission Format : Microsoft word document (.doc or .docx) Example of file name :
“Region_NameofPaper_Abstract.doc”

- Files should be compiled and sent to competitions.amsc2015@gmail.com by May 22nd 2015

D. SCIENTIFIC PAPER

i. The complete scientific paper should be a culmination of research work carried out and contain
detailed sections to introduce the area of study, purpose, outcomes and recommendations from
the study.

ii. Language: English

iii. The paper must be completely written in English. (If local words/phrases are used, English translations
must be provided)

iv. The research paper should include the following sections:

- Cover page (including Project title, Authors & Region/Institution)

- Introduction

- Materials & Methods/Research Methodology

- Results

- Discussion (including limitations)

- Conclusion

- References (to follow APA style)

- Appendix

v. Submission Specifications

- Word limit: 4000 words (excluding title, authors, references and appendix)

- Font : Times New Roman (11)

- Line spacing : 1.5

8|Page
 - Submission Format : Microsoft word document (.doc or .docx) Example of file name :
“Region_NameofPaper_ScientificPaper.doc”

- Files should be compiled and sent to competitions.amsc2015@gmail.com by May 22nd 2015

E. PRESENTATION

i. A total of ten research projects will be selected to present during the conference based on the
abstract and manuscript submitted.

ii. Only members involved in delivering the presentation are allowed to participate in the Q & A session.

iii. Language: English

iv. The presentation must be completely in English. Note that clarity of the presentation will be assessed.

v. Format of presentation:

- 10 minutes will be allotted for the presentation

- There will be a warning bell at the 2 minutes left

- 8 minutes will be allotted for the Q&A

- The use of models for demonstration is allowed.

iii. Submission Specifications

- Submission Format: Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation (.ppt or .pptx)/Keynote/Prezi

- Example of file name: “Region_NameofPaper_Presentation.pptx”

- Presentation file should be stored in a thumbdrive or CD and passed to the registration

committee on arrival at Singapore AMSC 2015

9|Page
SCIENTIFIC POSTER
INTRODUCTION

The Scientific Poster component of the Asian Medical Students' Conference Singapore 2015 provides
delegates with the opportunity to present their research projects in a poster format to medical students
and medical professionals.

Students are invited to submit an original poster on the theme of The Silver Tsunami before May 22nd
2015.

Please refer to the guidelines and selection / judging criteria below while writing the poster to ensure the
paper conforms to the specifications required for participation in this conference.

TIMELINE

• May 22nd 2015: Submission of abstract

• June 22ND 2015: Announcement of shortlisted posters for oral presentation

• July 9TH 2015: Judging of shortlisted posters during AMSC 2015

Abstracts of the top 10 teams will be shortlisted for the scientific poster oral presentation to judges during
AMSC 2015. Shortlisted teams will be notified via email to prepare an oral presentation for their poster.
All teams, whether shortlisted or not for the presentation, are to print their poster and bring the poster
along to showcase their work in the scientific poster fair during the conference.

10 | P a g e
GUIDELINES

A. PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

i. Each participating chapter may submit multiple scientific posters but only 1 scientific poster will be
shortlisted per chapter for presentation at the conference. Other poster submissions will be
displayed if deemed of good quality on a case by case basis.

ii. Participants may only submit their project for either the scientific paper or scientific poster
competition. Repeat entries will be disqualified from both competitions.

iii. Only the top 10 entries will be given the chance to present during the conference but all the posters
will be on display during the competition

iv. All other accepted posters will be put on display during AMSC 2015

v. The number of team members collaborating on a research project is not limited. However, for the
actual presentation, each team is allowed to have a maximum of 4 members both presenting at
the conference and participating during the Q&A session

B. PROJECT

i. Project has to be in line with the theme of the conference – ‘Geriatric Medicine – Embracing The
Silver Tsunami’

ii. Project need not be initiated in 2014 / after the guidelines are released but must be completed
before stipulated deadline.

C. ABSTRACT

i. The abstract is a brief summary of the research project which should highlight the main purpose of
the project and background information which links it to the theme. Any available information
about the methodology or key research findings should also be included.

ii. The abstract should include the following (no need for subsections):

- Project title

- Name of authors, region/institution, and contact information (e-mail address & phone number)

- Background/Introduction

- Aims & objectives

- Brief research methodology

- Key findings

11 | P a g e
 - Scope of research and areas for future research

iii. Submission Specifications

- The abstract must be completely written in English. (If local words / phrases are used, English
translations must be provided)

- Word limit : 500 words (excluding title and authors)

- Font : Times New Roman (11)

- Line spacing : 1.5

- Submission Format : Microsoft word document (.doc or .docx) Example of file name : “Scientific
poster abstract – Country.docx”

- Files should be compiled and sent to competitions.amsc2015@gmail.com by May 22nd 2015

D. SCIENTIFIC POSTER

i. Size: 90cm x 120cm

ii. Posters must be submitted in English

iii. Orientation: Portrait or Landscape

iv. Sections

- Title panel (AMSA chapter, authors, universities). Title is to be printed at the top of the poster.
(BOLD CAPITAL letters, Font: Calibri, Size: # 100). Name (s) of author (s) and institution (s) of
author (s) should be stated clearly, directly below the title. Provide the surname (s) of the author
(s) followed by initials. Print the name of the presenting author underlined.

- Introduction

- Material and methods

- Results

- Discussion

- Conclusion

- References (APA style, Authors may refer the website ‘www.apastyle.org’)

v. Poster panel dimensions for your consideration: 2m (height) X 1m (width).

- Maximum size of poster: 1.3 (height) X 0.9m (width)

- Material of panel board: Felt finish

12 | P a g e
 - Velcro for securing of posters on the poster panel will be provided

vi. Poster will be printed by the presenting team and brought along to AMSC Singapore 2015. The
poster should be submitted to the registration team upon arrival at AMSC Singapore 2015.

E. PRESENTATION

i. A total of 10 posters will be selected to present during the conference based on the abstract and
manuscript submitted.

ii. Only the members involved in delivering the presentation are allowed to participate in the Q & A
session. A maximum of 4 members can participate in the presentation and the Q & A session.

iii. Language: English

iv. The presentation must be completely in English. Note that clarity of the presentation will be assessed.

v. Format of presentation:

- 7 minutes will be allotted for the presentation

- There will be a warning bell when there are 2 minutes left during the presentation

- 3 minutes will be allotted for the Q&A

- The use of models for demonstration is allowed.

vii. A soft copy of the poster for presentation in .jpg format should be submitted by email to
competitions.amsc2015@gmail.com

13 | P a g e
WHITE PAPER
INTRODUCTION

The White Paper Competition is a component under the Public Health aspect of the Scientific
Competitions in the Asian Medical Students' Conference Singapore 2015. A team of delegates from
each country has to write a white paper proposing a public health policy change with regards to the
geriatric population in their own nation.

OBJECTIVE

1. To empower and inspire medical students to make changes in their own society and systems

2. To maximize participation amongst the delegations

3. To showcase the differences in healthcare landscape and policies across Asia

FORMAT

1. Every chapter will prepare a white paper to be submitted for judging at the competition

2. Every chapter will prepare a video trailer for their own white paper to be screened at AMSC 2015

3. A popular vote held during AMSC 2015 will be carried out after the audience has watched the
promotional videos. The top 8 teams will then proceed to make an oral presentation on their white
paper.

4. Based on the cumulative judging for the White paper, Trailer, and Presentation, the top team will be
announced.

TIMELINE

• May 22nd 2015: Submission of White Paper

• July 5th 2015: Video to be submitted to the organizing committee during registration at the
conference

• July 9TH 2015: Judging of shortlisted White Paper, Trailer and Presentation at AMSC 2015

14 | P a g e
GUIDELINES

The White Paper Competition comprises of 2 components; a white paper and a promotional video. The
presentation would be dependent on the public reception to the promotional video.

COMPETITION INSTRUCTIONS

WRITE A WHITE PAPER

Write a white paper proposing a public health policy change with regard to the geriatric population in
your own nation. Such a white paper should include recommendations for the society as a whole as
well as that targeted specifically at medical students.

A white paper is an authoritative report or guide helping readers understand an issue, solve a problem,
or make a decision. They are usually documents produced by the Government setting out details of
future policy on a particular subject and used to gain feedback, before formally presenting the policy
as a Bill.

Proposed Content

§ Define a health condition of significance to the geriatric population in your country, including
the epidemiology of the involved condition

§ Explore the status quo of the health condition in your country

§ Identify the problem(s) involved and the associated country’s policy/policies to target this
problem(s)

§ Assess the effectiveness of your country’s policy/policies regarding this issue

§ Suggest either:

o How to improve the policy OR

o Suggest a new policy

§ The use of graphs and charts are permissible in the white paper

TRAILER FOR WHITE PAPER

Based on the white paper that your chapter has worked on, come up with a promotional video/trailer
to be screened to the delegates and judges at the conference.

§ Make a video to advertise your White Paper to all delegates

§ Suggested Content: Reflective of your White Paper content (Status quo of health condition,
problems and effectiveness of policy/policies, proposed changes)
You are not limited to the suggested content

15 | P a g e
 § The top 8 trailers (determined by popular vote after screening at the conference) will have the
chance to present their white paper to a panel of judges and the delegates to compete for the
overall top white paper award.

ORAL PRESENTATION

§ Only the top 8 trailers (votes from all delegates and judges) will get to present their white paper.

§ Aim of the presentation: Explain the content of the white paper

o Introduce the chosen health condition

o Explain the status quo of the health condition

o Identify problems with targeted policy/policies

o Assess the effectiveness of these policy/policies

o Your proposal of an improved or new policy

JUDGING CRITERIA

WHITE PAPER AND TRAILER

White Paper

Judges’ evaluation for White Paper: 100%

§ Accurate identification of problem, policies related and rigor of evaluation of policies: 40%

§ Proposal of improved or new policy including the originality: 30%

§ Evidence-based: 20%

§ Presentation including the style and language: 10%

Trailer

§ Delegates’ votes: 80%

§ Judges’ evaluation: 20%

Prizes will be given to the “Best Overall Trailer”.

Top 8 trailers will have the chance to present their white paper to a panel of judges (oral presentation)

16 | P a g e
ORAL PRESENTATION

Judges’ evaluation: 100%

§ Content: 30%

§ Clarity: 40%

§ Question & Answer (Q&A): 30%

Prizes will be given to the “Best Oral Presentation Award”.

Based on the cumulative judging from all the 3 segments, prizes will be given to the top 3 White Papers.

ENTRY REQUIREMENT & GUIDELINES

WHITE PAPER

1. File format: Microsoft word document (.doc or .docx) or PDF format (.pdf)

2. Language: English only (If local words are used, English translations must be provided)

3. Document format:

• Limited to 6 pages (including appendix)

• Margins: top 2.00cm, bottom 2.00cm, left 1.50cm, right 1.50cm

• Font: Times New Roman

• Font size: 11

• Line spacing: single

4. Tables and Figures

-­‐ Must be individually provided in separate files

-­‐ Illustrations should be saved in JPEG or TIFF files - File name

-­‐ Tables: “Paper-Country-Table #(number)” (e.g. “Paper-Singapore-Table #2)

-­‐ Figures: “Paper-Country-Figure #(number)” (e.g. “Paper-Singapore-Figure #1) - Photographs’

resolution should be 300 dpi.

-­‐ Compression must be set to maximum quality to prevent pixelated appearance.

5. Name of Regional Chairperson & Director of authors and contact information of them (e-mail
address & phone number)

6. File name: “Paper – Full paper – Country” (e.g. Paper – Full paper – Singapore)

17 | P a g e
TRAILER

1. Make an interesting video (maximum 3 min) that is reflective of your White Paper, including the
proposed improvement/policy. Note that any videos with offensive images/scenes will be
automatically disqualified and will not be screened. English subtitles are required for all dialogues.
The video should be in .avi or .mov format.

2. The videos will be screened to all delegates. Voting by all delegates will take place after all the
videos have been screened. The final score will be contributed by popular votes (80%) and judges’
votes (20%). The top 8 videos (determined by voting) will have the chance to present to a panel of
judges for a chance to win “Best Presentation Award”.

3. The total score from the White Paper and the video will be added to determine the “Best Overall
White Paper and Video” award. Prizes will also be given to the first and second runner-ups.

ORAL PRESENTATION

1. File Format: Microsoft PowerPoint Presentation (.ppt or .pptx)

2. Language: English only

3. Length – 6 minutes of presentation, 4 minutes of Q&A

4. Maximum number of presenters: 3

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE & DEADLINE

§ The complete White Paper should be submitted by May 22nd 2015

- The Regional Chairperson of each region should be in-charge of collecting the abstract and
paper, and submit to AMSC 2015 at competitions.amsc2015@gmail.com

- Email should be titled: [Public Health] White Paper & Video Submission – Country

§ The completed video should be stored in a thumbdrive or CD and submitted to the registration
team at AMSC Singapore 2015 on arrival.

18 | P a g e
PHOTOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION

The Photography Competition is the other aspect of the Public Health component of the Scientific
Competitions in the Asian Medical Students' Conference Singapore 2015. This relatively more light-
hearted component aims to raise awareness of challenges in geriatric care amongst the general public.
It also provides the opportunity to bring out the creativity in delegates and to shed a different light on
the geriatric problems faced in their native countries.

OBJECTIVE

1. To increase awareness of challenges in geriatric care faced by patient, family, medical

professionals and/or respective communities/societies

2. To showcase the differences in geriatric care and healthcare landscape across Asia

GUIDELINES

PHOTOGRAPH

§ Photograph identifying a challenge in geriatric care from the patient, family, medical
professionals and/or societal perspective

§ Framing of the photograph is not compulsory and dependent on the delegation

SHORT WRITE-UP

§ Introduce the challenge in geriatric care identified in the photograph

§ Describe the challenge identified

§ Explain the potential impact of the photograph

CRITERIA

§ Fully delegates’ vote (100%)

Prizes will be given out to “Best Photograph Award”

19 | P a g e
ENTRY REQUIREMENT

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION

§ Each country has to send at least 1 but less than 4 photographs

§ Satisfy theme, guidelines and entry requirements

§ Submission before deadline

§ No plagiarism of any sort

§ No offensive indication of any sort

PHOTOGRAPH

§ Size of photo: Not larger than 10R (10”x12”); Photo inclusive of frame: Not larger than 12”x15”

§ Orientation: Portrait or Landscape

§ Photo need not be framed [but chapters can choose to do so at own cost]

§ Photos should be printed by chapters and submitted to the organizers at AMSC 2015 Registration

SHORT WRITE-UP

§ File format: Microsoft word document (.doc or .docx) or PDF format (.pdf)

§ Language: English only (If local words are used, English translations must be provided)

§ Word limit: 100 words (excluding title, authors and references)

§ File name: “Paper – Full paper – Country” (e.g. Paper – Full paper – Singapore)

§ Font: Times New Roman (11)

§ Line spacing: single

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE & DEADLINE

§ The photographs and associated printed short write-up should be submitted on the 1st day of
conference during registration

§ The Regional Chairperson of each region should be in-charge of collecting all the photographs
and write-up on the 1st day of the conference

20 | P a g e
APPENDIX – JUDGING RUBRICS
SCIENTIFIC PAPER JUDGING RUBRICS

SCIENTIFIC PAPER RUBRICS

Outstanding Average Needs Improvement

Relevance (20%) [16-20] [10-14] [1-9]

1. Chosen topic is of significant 1. Chosen topic is of is of some 1. Chosen topic is of is of limited
Criterion evaluates importance importance importance
the significance of 2. Importance is well justified with 2. Adequate explanation of 2. Poor explanation of
the project to the noteworthy elaboration importance importance
theme of ‘The Silver Note: Any entry with poor
Tsunami’ explanation would be graded in
this category

Rigor of Study (30%) [22-30] [12-21] [1-11]

1. Study design is suitable for 1. Adequate study design and 1. Poor study design and results
This criterion study and results are of strong results are of decent statistical are of limited statistical rigor
assesses the statistical rigor rigor 2. Ideas are poorly substantiated
effectiveness of the 2. Ideas are fully substantiated 2. Ideas are sufficiently with poor interpretation and
study design and with data and detailed substantiated with data and references
rigor of evidence interpretations and references reasonable interpretations and 3. Concepts are not grounded
presented. 3. Novel evidence critically references and/or backed by questionable
evaluated 3. Novel evidence well data
evaluated

Impact and [22-30] [12-21] [1-11]

Application (30%) 1. Study is clear and effectively 1. Minor conceptual flaws 1. Serious conceptual flaws
put across. present present
Criterion assesses 2. Comprehensive and quality 2. Main points of study are 2. Poor presentation of content
the impact of the information is presented evident and put across with of research with little elaboration
project and 3. Impact is significant and well sufficient detail 3. Project has limited /adverse
knowledge explained 3. Project has impact which is impact and/or is poorly
generated adequately explained explained
4. Results are of strong
significance to the chosen area 4. Results are of significance to 4. Results are of little significance
of study area of study

Originality (20%) [16-20] [10-14] [1-9]

1. Concepts presented are 1. Concept is based on a novel 1. Re-hashing of existing
This criterion highly original concept even if the content concepts with limited value-add
evaluates the 2. Novel ideas and conclusions may be already established
novelty and viability are presented
of the project on the
whole

21 | P a g e
PRESENTATION RUBRICS
Outstanding Average Needs Improvement

Relevance (20%) [16-20] [10-14] [1-9]

1. Chosen topic is of significant 1. Chosen topic is of is of some 1. Chosen topic is of is of limited
Criterion evaluates importance importance importance
the significance of 2. Importance is well justified with 2. Adequate explanation of 2. Poor explanation of
the project to the noteworthy elaboration importance importance
theme of ‘The Silver Note: Any entry with poor
Tsunami’ explanation would be graded in
this category

Impact and [22-30] [12-21] [1-11]

Application (30%) 1. Study is clear and effectively 1. Minor conceptual flaws 1. Serious conceptual flaws
put across. 2. Main points of study are 2. Poor presentation of content
Criterion assesses 2. Comprehensive and quality evident and put across with of research with little elaboration
the impact of the information is presented sufficient detail 3. Project has limited /adverse
project and 3. Impact is significant and well 3. Project has impact which is impact and/or is poorly
knowledge explained adequately explained explained
generated
4. Results are of strong 4. Results are of significance to 4. Results are of little significance
significance to the chosen area area of study
of study

Creativity (30%) [22-30] [12-21] [1-11]

1. Mode of presentation is highly 1. Presentation had some 1. Little or no attempt was made
This criterion creative and unique. elements of creativity. to vary mode of presentation.
assesses the level of 2. Excellent use of visual aids to 2. Good attempt at the use of 2. Little or no attempt at the use
creativity of the support verbal presentation visual aids to support verbal of visual aids to support verbal
team in their mode presentation. presentation.
of presentation and
audience
engagement.

Clarity [11-15] [6-10] [1-5]

(30%) 1. Content of presentation is
clearly presented and well-
explained.
This criterion
assesses the ability Content of presentation caters
of the presentation to all levels within the audience
(both its content and and any complex concepts
delivery) to reach brought up was adequately
the audience explained to benefit the junior
students in the audience.
1. Content of presentation was
generally clearly presented and
explained.
Content of presentation was
catered to most of the audience
but some concepts were not
adequately explained.
1. Content of presentation was
not clearly presented and
explained.
Content of presentation could
only be understood by a small
group within the audience and
most concepts were not
adequately explained.

22 | P a g e
SCIENTIFIC POSTER JUDGING RUBRICS
SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT RUBRICS
Outstanding
Content (25%) 1. Study design is suitable for
study and results are of strong
statistical rigor
2. Ideas are fully substantiated
with data and detailed
interpretations and references
3. Novel evidence critically
evaluated
Relevance to theme 1. Topic is of significant
of conference (25%) importance
2. Importance is well justified
3. Noteworthy elaboration of
importance of disease to the
region
Impact and [22-30]
Application (30%) 1. Study is clear and effectively
put across.
Criterion assesses 2. Comprehensive and quality
the impact of the information is presented
project and 3. Impact is significant and well
knowledge explained
generated
4. Results are of strong
significance to the chosen area
of study
Originality (20%) [16-20]
1. Concepts presented are
This criterion highly original
evaluates the 2. Novel ideas and conclusions
novelty and viability are presented
of the project on the
whole
Average
1. Adequate study design and
results are of decent statistical
rigor
2. Ideas are sufficiently
substantiated with data and
reasonable interpretations and
references
3. Novel evidence well
evaluated
1. Topic is of understandable
importance to the region
2. Adequate explanation of
importance
[12-21]
1. Minor conceptual flaws
2. Main points of study are
evident and put across with
sufficient detail
3. Project has impact which is
adequately explained
4. Results are of significance to
area of study
[10-14]
1. Concept is based on a novel
concept even if the content
may be already established
Needs Improvement
1. Poor study design and results
are of limited statistical rigor
2. Ideas are poorly substantiated
with poor interpretation and
references
3. Concepts are not grounded
and/or backed by questionable
data
1. Topic is of limited importance
2. Poor explanation of
importance
Note: Any entry with poor
explanation should be graded
in this category regardless
of the aspect studied
[1-11]
1. Serious conceptual flaws
2. Poor presentation of content
of research with little
elaboration
3. Project has limited /adverse
impact and/or is poorly
explained
4. Results are of little significance
[1-9]
1. Re-hashing of existing
concepts with limited value-add
23 | P a g e
SCIENTIFIC POSTER PRESENTATION RUBRICS
Outstanding
Content (25%) 1. Study design is suitable for
study and results are of strong
statistical rigor
2. Ideas are fully substantiated
with data and detailed
interpretations and references
3. Novel evidence critically
evaluated
Relevance to theme 1. Topic is of significant
of conference (25%) importance to the region
2. Importance is well justified
Criterion evaluates
3. Noteworthy elaboration of
the significance of
importance of disease to the
the project to ‘The
region
Silver Tsunami’
Content of 1. Content of poster is clearly
presentation presented and well-explained.
(25%) Content of poster and
presentation caters to all levels
This criterion within the audience and any
assesses the ability complex concepts brought up
of the presenters to was adequately explained to
explain the content benefit the junior students in the
of the poster to the audience.
audience
Presentation skills 1. Mode of presentation is highly
(25%) creative and unique.
2. Excellent use of visual aids to
This criterion support verbal presentation
assesses the level of
creativity of the
team in their mode
of presentation and
audience
engagement
Average
1. Adequate study design and
results are of decent statistical
rigor
2. Ideas are sufficiently
substantiated with data and
reasonable interpretations and
references
3. Novel evidence well
evaluated
1. Topic is of understandable
importance to the region
2. Adequate explanation of
importance
1. Content of poster was
generally clearly presented and
explained.
Content of poster and
presentation was catered to
most of the audience but some
concepts were not adequately
explained.
1. Presentation had some
elements of creativity.
2. Good attempt at the use of
visual aids to support verbal
presentation.
Needs Improvement
1. Poor study design and results
are of limited statistical rigor
2. Ideas are poorly substantiated
with poor interpretation and
references
3. Concepts are not grounded
and/or backed by questionable
data
1. Topic is poorly understood
and of limited importance to
the region
2. Poor explanation of
importance
Note: Any entry with poor
explanation should be graded
in this category regardless
of the aspect studied
1. Content of poster was not
clearly presented and
explained.
Content of poster and
presentation could only be
understood by a small group
within the audience and most
concepts were not adequately
explained.
1. Little or no attempt was
made to vary mode of
presentation.
2. Little or no attempt at the use
of visual aids to support verbal
presentation.
24 | P a g e
WHITE PAPER RUBRICS

WHITE PAPER RUBRICS

Outstanding Average Needs Improvement

Relevance (20%) [16-20] [10-14] [1-9]

1. Chosen topic is of significant 1. Topic is of understandable 1. Topic is of limited
Criterion evaluates importance importance importance
the significance of 2. Importance is well justified 2. Adequate explanation of 2. Poor explanation of
the condition and well elaborated importance of study importance of study
identified to the Note: Any entry with poor
theme explanation should be graded
in this category

Impact and [22-30] [12-21] [1-11]

Application (30%) 1. Accurate, detailed, and 1. Accurate identifies and 1. Mischaracterizes problems
insightful description of the describes the condition and and/or overlook issues
condition and associated some problems 2. Displays little or no social
This criterion
problems 2. Presents insight into the sensitivity, including
assesses the
2. Manifests concern for equity perspectives of some, or stereotyping and
importance of
and analyses situations presents limited insights into the generalization.
condition and critically. Evaluates issue from perspectives of many 3. Impact is poorly explained
accuracy in perspectives of multiple shareholders
problems identified shareholders 3. Observable impact with
3. Impact is significant and well adequate explanation
explained
Effectiveness of [22-30] [12-21] [1-11]
Analysis (30%) 1. Presents a balanced and 1. Attempts to present a 1. Demonstrates unchallenged
critical view which reflects balanced and critical view dependence on authority,
informed judgment 2. Identifies basic experts,
This criterion
2. Recognizes complex consequences to proposed 2. Does not consider wide
assesses the validity
interactive nature of the actions with attention to their ranging implications of policy
and strength of critic policies and reconciles these outcomes in most aspects change proposed
towards policies challenges
identified

Originality (20%) [16-20] [10-14] [1-9]

This criterion 1. Concepts presented are 1. Paper is based on a novel 1. Re-hashing of existing
evaluates the highly original concept even if the content concepts with limited value-
novelty and viability 2. Unique measure proposed may be already established add
of the perspective
3. Novel ideas/changes are
and suggestions
presented
Extra credit will be
given to teams that
have tested and
presented the
effectiveness of the
suggestions

25 | P a g e
TRAILER RUBRICS
Outstanding
Relevance (20%) [16-20]
1. Reflective of White Paper
Criterion evaluates written
the concordance of 2. Chosen topic is of significant
the video to the importance to delegate’s
country
respective White
Paper and the 3. Importance is well justified
theme ‘The Silver [Bonus] Noteworthy elaboration
Tsunami’ of importance of disease to the
region
Effectiveness (30%) [22-30]
1. Storyline is interesting and
Criterion assesses easy to follow
the ability of the 2. Able to capture audience’s
attention throughout
video to convey the
content of the White
Paper
Originality (30%) [22-30]
Criterion evaluates 1. Concepts presented are
the novelty and highly original
viability of the 2. Unique measure proposed
perspective and
3. Novel/groundbreaking
suggestions on the
ideas/changes are presented
whole.
Production Quality [8-10]
(10%) 1. Excellent video and audio
quality
2. Production is effective in
Criterion evaluates
communicating the idea
the quality of the
chosen
video
Participation (10%) [8-10]
1. Clear evidence of
delegation participation in
both video and creation of
video
Average
[10-14]
1. Some relevance to written
White Paper submitted
2. Topic is of understandable
importance to delegate’s
country
3. Unclear explanation of
importance
[12-21]
1. Minor gaps or inconsistencies
in storyline
2. Able to capture audience’s
attention but not throughout
[12-21]
1. Video is based on a novel
concept even if the content
may be already established
[5-7]
1. Visual and audio quality can
be improved but do not affect
understanding of video
2. Production is somewhat
effective in communicating the
idea chosen
[5-7]
1. Clear evidence of
delegation participation in
either video or creation of
video
Needs Improvement
[1-9]
1. Totally irrelevant to written
White Paper submitted
2. Topic is of limited importance
3. Poor explanation of
importance
[1-11]
1. Major gaps or inconsistencies
in storyline
2. Unable to capture
audience’s attention
[1-11]
1. Re-hashing of existing
concepts with limited value-
add
[1-4]
1. Visual and audio quality
affects understanding of the
video
2. Poor production quality that
greatly affects the clarity of
idea chosen
[1-4]
1. Some evidence of
delegation participation in
video or creation of video
26 | P a g e
ORAL PRESENTATION RUBRICS
Outstanding Average Needs Improvement

Content (30%) [22-30] [12-21] [1-11]

1. No conceptual errors
Relevance of the 2. Purpose and main points of
presentation to the the White Paper are effectively
White Paper, Video put across.
and the theme; and 3. Comprehensive and quality
also the importance information is presented
and accuracy of the
4. Impact of project is
issues raised
significant and well explained.
1. Minor conceptual flaws
2. Main points of research are
evident
3. Sufficient detail is presented
in a concise manner
4. Project has some impact with
is adequately explained
1. Serious conceptual flaws
present
2. Poor presentation of content
of research with little
elaboration
3. Project has limited /adverse
impact
4. Impact is poorly explained

Creativity (20%) [16-20] [10-15] [1-9]

1. Mode of presentation is 1. Presentation had some 1. Little or no attempt was
Creativity of the highly creative and unique. elements of creativity. made to vary mode of
team in their 2. Excellent use of visual aids to 2. Good attempt at the use of presentation.
presentation and to support verbal presentation visual aids to support verbal 2. Little or no attempt at the use
audience presentation. of visual aids to support verbal
engagement presentation.

Clarity (30%) [22-30] [10-15] [1-9]

1. Content of presentation is
This criterion clearly presented and well-
assesses the ability explained.
of the presentation 2. Content of presentation
(both its content and caters to all levels within the
delivery) to reach audience and any complex
diverse levels within concepts was adequately
the audience explained
1. Content of presentation was
generally clearly presented
and explained.
2. Content of presentation was
catered to most of the
audience but some concepts
were not adequately
explained.
1. Content of presentation was
not clearly presented and
explained.
2. Content of presentation
could only be understood by a
small group within the
audience and most concepts
were not adequately
explained.

Question and [16-20] [10-15] [1-9]

Answer (20%) 1. Majority of the delegates in 1. Majority of the delegates in 1. Most delegates in the team
the team showed the team are able to answer are unable to answer most of
understanding towards their some questions the questions
This criterion
project 2. Some justification/ 2. Inability to justify/substantiate
assesses the
2. Impressive justification/ substantiation of presented presented material
delegates’
substantiation of presented material
understanding of material
their White Paper
and their ability to
think on their feet

27 | P a g e