Presentation Judging

The below judging process steps and scoring criteria are meant to provide judges and presenting authors with a uniform expectation for judging poster presentations and featured talks.

Judges must submit scores via the score submission form.

Score Submission ForM (Google)

Presentation Judging Sheet (pdf)

Judging Process

Virtual Presentations

To be eligible for awards, authors participating virtually must install a 2-3 minute video recording of their oral presentation in Gather by April 9 or they must present live for a judge in Gather during the virtual poster presentation session on Tuesday, April 16 from 12:00–1:30pm ET.

1. Authors upload their presentations to the Google folder

• Presentations can be a poster or slides, and may also include a video recording as described in detail on the Presentation Formats webpage
• There are three poster halls in Gather, A, B and C
• Poster Hall A includes posters numbered 1-32
• Poster Hall B includes posters numbered 33-64
• Poster Hall C includes posters numbered 65-82
• Authors can find their assigned presentation number on the Presentations webpage
• Authors must upload their files to the Presentations Google folder

2. Virtual poster judges will be assigned a set of posters to judge

• These assignments will be given out via email by Wednesday, April 10
• Judges are expected to review only a few presentations from April 10-17

3. Presenting authors give a 2-3 minute oral presentation for each judge

• Each presentations should be reviewed by two judges

4. Judges evaluate the presentation based on criteria categories

• See the scoring categories and value descriptions below
• Judges can view posters and recorded presentations on demand on the Presentations webpage and in the Gather Poster Halls

5. Judges input their scores into the submission form by the deadline

• Using the score submission form allows for scores to be quickly aggregated
• Judges must attest no conflict of interest with the author or research
• All scores must be submitted by 10pm ET on Wednesday, April 17

In-Person Presentations

To be eligible for awards, authors attending in-person must present live for two judges during the in-person poster presentation session on Wednesday, April 17 from 4:00–5:00pm ET.

1. Authors install their poster upon arrival to the conference venue

• Posters will be displayed in the Platinum Ballroom
• Authors should find their assigned presentation number on the Presentations webpage and install their poster at the corresponding board number in the hall

2. In-person poster judges will be assigned a set of posters to judge

• Assignments will be given out at the meeting prior to the session
• Judges are expected to review about 4-6 presentations during the session

3. Presenting authors will give a 2-3 minute oral presentation for each judge

• Each presentations should be reviewed by two judges
• Authors should try to remain with their poster until judged twice
• If an author isn’t at their poster, judges are expected to return to the poster after reviewing other posters in their assigned set
• Judges will be wearing a visible label on their badge and should make it known they will be evaluating the author before the presentation starts
• Judges may ask follow up questions, and if an author directly asks for feedback, judges may provide constructive comments and advice to the author(s)

4. Judges evaluate the presentation based on criteria categories

• See the scoring categories and value descriptions below
• A handout will be available to write down and track scores during the session, and we recommend writing down scores immediately following the presentation

5. Judges input their scores into the submission form before the deadline

• Using the online submission form allows for scores to be quickly aggregated
• Judges must attest no conflict of interest with the author or research
• All scores must be submitted by 10pm ET on Wednesday, April 17

Featured Talks

All presenters will be eligible for awards unless otherwise indicating they cannot accept prizes.

1. Authors will give oral presentations

• Talks are either 5-6 minutes or 10-12 minutes long
• Presenters will be strictly required to adhere to time limits
• About 2-3 minutes will be reserved for questions after each talk
• Talks can be live in-person, live via Zoom, or a video recording can be played

2. Judges evaluate the presentation based on criteria categories

• Any judge can submit scores or any talk, whether in-person or watching online

3. Judges input their scores into the submission form before the deadline

• Using the online submission form allows for scores to be quickly aggregated
• Judges must attest no conflict of interest with the author or research
• All scores must be submitted by 3:00pm ET on Thursday, April 18

Scoring Criteria

Each presentation is scored on three criteria: topic, clarity, and engagement. Judges provide a score from 1-5 for each of the criteria categories below. Judges may not give zero scores and should not use half points. See the qualitative terms associated with each numerical score.

Most scores should be in the 2 to 4 range — representing 'good', 'great', or 'excellent' work — with 5s reserved for 'perfect' work. 1 = Poor  /  2 = Good  /  3 = Great  /  4 = Excellent  /  5 = Exceptional

Topic – Novelty of topic and overall relevance to neuroethics. Clearly articulates a neuroethics problem giving rise to a research question that drives the work. Identifies the importance to neuroethics of any conclusions drawn from the work.

Clarity – Clarity of argumentation and presentation are all clear and tightly connected. Employs and clearly identifies research and/or theoretical methods appropriate for the problem and questions raised. Conclusions emerge clearly from these methods.

Engagement – Engagement with relevant research and public audiences. Includes relevant background information and engages with extant literature and ethical implications.

Using the submission form, judges are also asked to indicate if the author and presentation should be considered for an award and if they have any additional comments about the work.

Score Form

Score Evaluation

Presentations must have two scores submitted by separate judges to be eligible for prizes. If a presentation has more than two scores, only the two latest submitted scores should be used.

One or multiple presentations with the highest average score in each award category — format or topical listed above — should be recognized as the ‘best’ presentation or ‘top’ contribution.

If there is a tie in score among two or more of the top presentations, the abstract submission score given to this corresponding presentation should be used to rank the presentations in the group, with the award going to the top ranked and proceeding downward until no prizes remain. If there is a tie among abstract scores and thus a clear rank order cannot be produced, a member of the Program Committee should break the tie by viewing all information included in the score submission sheet and reviewing the virtual or in-person poster or slides available.

Awards

The number awards given for each category below may vary based on the number prizes available to give out. Currently we have 18 prizes available to award.

Authors of top presentations — whether virtual or in-person — will be recognized during the Awards and Recognitions session on Thursday, April 18 from 4:00–5:00pm ET.

Format

• Best Feature Talks
• Best Virtual Poster Presentations
• Best In-Person Poster Presentations
• Best Abstract Submissions

Topic

• Top Contributions: Theoretical / Philosophical
• Top Contributions: Clinical Neuroethics
• Top Contributions: Neurolaw / Policy

Prize Donors