Abstract judging criteria
All abstract submissions will undergo a peer review process by the Bold ideas, better solutions 2017 program subcommittee. Abstracts will be judged on the basis of excellence in three criteria.
- Abstract quality
The abstract should succinctly portray the background, rationale, methodological approach, key findings and significance of the research. The abstract needs to appeal to an audience including clinical and scientific researchers who may not be familiar with the field of research.
- Scientific quality
The research presented should be of a high quality conducted with the most appropriate and advanced techniques. The analysis of the data should be thoroughly and rigorously conducted.
- Benefit and impact
The benefit for people with lifelong and complex needs and the applied impact on practice, service delivery of system design should be clearly portrayed. The key findings of the study should be supported by the evidence presented and the outcomes interpreted in the context of the state of current knowledge.
Judging of abstracts will take into account outstanding qualities in each criterion. Equal weighting of these qualities will apply.
Presentation judging criteria
Judging of oral presentations will take into account excellence in the three abstract judging criterions in addition to presentation criteria. Judging will be conducted by an esteemed panel of research leaders in multiple fields.
- Delivery and communication quality
The presentation needs to appeal to anon-specialist audience, follow a logical sequence, engage and educate the audience.
The presentation adheres to the oral presentation guidelines:
- Short paper: 12-minute presentation with 3-minutes of questions—total 15-minutes.
- Lightning talks: 4-minute presentation with 1-minute of questions—total 5-minutes.