1. Overview and Purpose

The Best Oral Presentation and Best Poster Presentation Awards recognize outstanding research contributions, clarity of communication, and professional presentation skills delivered during the conference. These awards aim to encourage scientific rigor, effective dissemination of findings, and engaging academic dialogue.

2. Eligibility and Award Categories

Categories:

• Best Oral Presentation Award: Evaluates content mastery, slide design, oral delivery, and dynamic Q&A interaction.
• Best Poster Presentation Award: Evaluates visual presentation layout, logical flow, concise summary delivery, and individual engagement.

Eligibility Criteria:

• The presenter must be registered for the conference and deliver the presentation in person during their scheduled session.
• All academic disciplines and participant levels (e.g., students, postdocs, early career researchers, and senior faculty) are eligible.
• Session chairs (judges) cannot compete in the sessions they judge.

3. Evaluation Procedure

1. Judge Assignment: Each session is assigned a panel of 2 independent judges. For oral sessions, the judges are the session chairs; for posters, the judges are two poster session chairs, who cross-evaluate the two sessions.
2. Scoring: Judges evaluate each presenter using the standardized 100-point rubrics provided below.
3. Score Submission: Judges submit completed evaluation sheets to the TPC Committee immediately following the session.
4. Selection: Raw scores from all judges are averaged. The highest-scoring presenter in each track receives the award. In the event of a tie, the "Scientific Content & Methodology" sub-score acts as the tiebreaker.
5. Awards Presentation: Awards (e-certificates) will be presented to the awardees after the conference by email.

4. Best Oral Presentation Judging Rubric (100 Points Total)

Oral presentations are evaluated across four primary domains. Each criterion is scored on a scale corresponding to its weight.

Evaluation Criteria	Description & Key Focus Areas	Max Points	Score
1. Scientific Content & Methodology	Clear statement of research background, objectives, and novelty. Robust methodology, sound theoretical/experimental foundation. Data and results are accurately analyzed and effectively supported. Conclusions are directly supported by the presented data.	35
2. Organization & Slide Design	Logical structure: Introduction → Method → Results → Conclusion. Slides are clean, legible, concise, and visually appealing. Effective use of figures, diagrams, and tables without visual clutter.	25
3. Oral Delivery & Time Management	Clear articulation, appropriate pace, tone, and confidence. Maintains eye contact/engagement with the audience. Strict adherence to allocated time limits (including Q&A setup).	25
4. Q&A & Discussion Handling	Demonstrates deep knowledge of the subject matter. Answers questions accurately, concisely, and professionally. Handles constructive criticism or challenging questions with composure.	15
TOTAL SCORE		100

5. Best Poster Presentation Judging Rubric (100 Points Total)

Poster presentations are evaluated on visual aesthetics, self-explanatory narrative structure, short oral pitch, and interaction quality.

Evaluation Criteria	Description & Key Focus Areas	Max Points	Score
1. Visual Design & Layout	Balanced visual structure; clean contrast between text and background. Appropriate font sizes; easily readable from 1–2 meters away. High-quality graphics, plots, and figures with clear labels/captions.	30
2. Content & Scientific Merit	Clear hypothesis, scientific problem, and significance. Concise methodology, high data quality, and well-supported results. Summary and conclusion clearly state key contributions.	30
3. Poster Pitch & Summary Delivery	Delivers a crisp 2–3 minute overview ("elevator pitch") effectively. Communicates key takeaways clearly without simply reading text off the poster. Demonstrates enthusiasm and mastery of the subject.	25
4. Engagement & Q&A Interaction	Engages actively with visitors and judges during the poster session. Responds thoughtfully and accurately to inquiries. Articulates limitations, future work, and broader impacts clearly.	15
TOTAL SCORE		100