Scoring Point System (SPS)

1. Originality (30 points)

   • Novelty of the research idea or approach.
   • Creativity in problem-solving.
   • Uniqueness of the research methodology.

2. Methodological Rigor (25 points)

   • Clarity and coherence of research methodology.
   • Use of appropriate research design.
   • Rigorous data collection and analysis.

3. Impact and Practicality (20 points)

   • Potential real-world applications of the research findings.
   • Relevance to current societal or scientific issues.
   • Feasibility of implementation in practical settings.

4. Presentation Quality (15 points)

   • Clarity and organization of the research paper or presentation.
   • Effectiveness of visual aids (if any).
   • Ability to communicate complex ideas clearly.

5. Interdisciplinary Integration (10 points)

   • Integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines.
   • Contribution to bridging gaps between fields of study.
   • Innovation through interdisciplinary collaboration.

Bonus Points:

• Collaborative Innovation Bonus (+5 points): Awarded for research conducted in collaboration with other teams or institutions, demonstrating synergy and shared intellectual contributions.

• Ethical Considerations Bonus (+3 points): Awarded for thorough consideration and integration of ethical principles in the research design and implementation.

• Community Engagement Bonus (+3 points): Recognizes efforts to engage with and incorporate feedback from community stakeholders or end-users in the research process.

Penalty Points:

• Methodological Flaws Penalty (-5 points): Deducted for significant flaws in research design or execution that undermine the credibility or reliability of findings.

• Non-compliance Penalty (-3 points): Deducted for failure to adhere to contest guidelines or submission requirements.

Total Points: 100

Judging Criteria:

• Judges will independently score each entry based on the above categories and bonus/penalty points.
• Scores will be averaged across judges to determine final rankings.
• Judges may provide comments and feedback to participants to justify scores.

This system aims to provide a comprehensive evaluation framework that rewards innovation, rigor, practicality, interdisciplinary collaboration, and ethical considerations while penalizing significant methodological flaws and non-compliance with contest rules.