Evaluation criteria

CRITERIA for the abstracts

  1. The work is original.
  2. The research has relevance in the specific research area.
  3. The abstract is carefully prepared and is well structured.
  4. The background and relevance are clearly described.
  5. The work is innovative.
  6. The methodology is sound and the data/arguments/reasoning are solid.
  7. If the abstract is based on quantitative data, the committee will check whether appropriate statistical tests have been performed to underpin claims on significance. If the abstract is based on qualitative data, the committee will check whether the findings are based on established paradigms/frameworks and contextualized appropriately. In the case of a mixed-methods study, a brief description of both types of methodological approaches must be provided. The data presented refers to one specific approach and must meet the criteria of the corresponding approach as listed above.
  8. There is a clear conclusion at the end.
  9. The work is either highly significant for the respective field or has a potential, high impact in the future (e.g. development of new methodologies/interpretations that will generate new knowledge and impact for society).

Additional CRITERIA for the presentation:

  • The candidate performs well in the presentation (confident delivery, adequate volume/pace of speech …).
  • The presentation is carefully prepared, well-structured and addresses the audience at an appropriate level (academic, but not necessarily discipline-specific).
  • The presentation is finished in time.
  • The candidate performs well in the discussion (able to answer questions properly, solid argumentation).


  • Rating 1 (accepted „very good“) ≥ 8 of the 9 criteria are met (1,2,9 must be met)
  • Rating 2 (accepted „good“) ≥ 6 of the 9 criteria are met (1,2,9 must be met)
  • Rating 3 (accepted „satisfactory“) ≥ 6 of the 9 criteria are met but not all the essential ones (1, 2 & 9)
  • Rating 4 (accepted „adequate“): Sound and solid but not very exciting work or confirmative or descriptive work not leading to a clear conclusion or take home message.
  • Rating 5 (rejected „inadequate“): Unsound methodologies, conclusions not underpinned by the data, important relevant information missing.

CRITERIA for the Audience Award

  • The „Special Audience’s Choice“ is about bringing your own work closer to a general audience in an entertaining way and conveying the relevance of the topic in just a few minutes. The focus is less on scientific excellence and more on the ability to convey complex scientific questions in an understandable manner. The audience votes via a mobile phone app.