Skip redundant pieces
Office of Postdoctoral Affairs

Postdoc Research Day


Scoring Criteria

The judges will have six items to score. Whole number scores are required with 1 = poor to 10 = excellent with 5-6 considered an "average" starting score. The postdoc's performance can be evaluated below, at, or above "average" for each item.

Judges have the flexibility of adjusting or editing their scoring for each presentation based on the performance of the postdocs presenting in the same session. This is important to note that postdocs will be judged according to the same scoring criteria regardless if they present at the first, middle or last. Judges should use this feature to make the judging fair and equal.

Abstract - Item #1

Was the abstract a clear, concise statement of the problem, results and conclusion?

Having received the abstract in the judges packet, judges are asked to review and score the abstract before attending the presentations on Postdoc Research Day. Abstracts should be judged on how well the presenter writes a concise summation of the research and adheres to the abstract guidelines stated below.

  1. State the problem and its relevance. Include sufficient background information for presentation to a general audience.
  2. Give a brief description of the methods and experiments. The statement(s) should be very brief without a lot of details.
  3. State the results of the data, including statistical significance.
  4. State the conclusion(s) interpreted from the results. Indicate if the conclusion addressed the stated problem.

Problem - Item #2

Was the problem and its relevance clearly defined, including sufficient background information?

How effectively did the postdoc define the research problem and provide enough background information so that a general audience could comprehend the rationale and goal of the research.

Experiments - Item #3

Were the experiments appropriately designed to address the problem?

This item assesses the experimental design for the research, including appropriate control and treatment groups, and the clarity and accuracy of describing the results, including statistical analyses.

It is assumed that all the details of experimental procedures need not be given in this very short oral presentation and that commonly used research methods need not be fully detailed during the presentation. Significant variations from established common procedures should be included for clarity in the presentation.

Conclusion - Item #4

Were logical conclusions interpreted from the results and did the conclusions address the stated problem?

This item assesses the ability of the presenter to: 1) draw appropriate conclusions from the results obtained and 2) make conclusions that address the original problem.

Presentation - Item #5

Was the presentation organized clearly?

This item assesses the presenter's ability to organize the presentation so that a general audience can follow the research presentation.

Overall - Item #6

Overall, rate the postdoc's presentation.

Rate the postdoc's oral presentation skills and overall style to clearly present the research. Judges should also consider how well the postdoc handles questions from the judges. **Judges are encouraged to ask questions.