100-Point Evaluation Rubric
Two independent faculty specialists matched by medical discipline and study methodology evaluate every 2-page proposal.
Disciplinary & Clinical Alignment
Each proposal is paired with two faculty specialists from the academic department or clinical specialty closest to your subject matter.
Methodological Expertise
Reviewers are also matched to your study design, whether wet-lab/animal assays, clinical trials, epidemiological cohorts, or AI/ML computational pipelines.
4 Core Domains · 7 Scored Criteria (100 Points)
Composite score is the average of Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2. Domains 1, 2, and 3 must each strictly exceed 40%.
| Domain | Criterion | Scale | Weight | Max | Minimum Cutoff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Domain 1: Feasibility & Reliability30% (30 pts) | 1A.Methodological Rigor & Internal Validity | 1–5 | × 3 | 15 pts | > 12.0 / 30 (>40%) |
| 1B.Biological, Technical & Ethical Plausibility | 1–5 | × 3 | 15 pts | ||
| Domain 2: Need & Future Impact35% (35 pts) | 2A.Significance of the Knowledge Gap | 1–5 | × 2 | 10 pts | > 14.0 / 35 (>40%) |
| 2B.Potential Impact & Expected Value of Outcome | 1–5 | × 4 | 20 pts | ||
| 2C.Specificity of Anticipated Findings & Translational Linkage | 1–5 | × 1 | 5 pts | ||
| Domain 3: Novelty & Originality25% (25 pts) | 3.Originality & Non-Derivative Thinking | 1–5 | × 5 | 25 pts | > 10.0 / 25 (>40%) |
| Domain 4: Proposal Quality10% (10 pts) | 4.Clarity, Scientific Narrative & Logic | 1–5 | × 2 | 10 pts | No cutoff (protects non-native English style) |
| Total Composite Score | 100 pts | Pass Domains 1, 2 & 3 | |||
Domain 1: Feasibility & Reliability (30 pts)
Cutoff: > 12.0 / 30Domain 2: Need & Future Impact (35 pts)
Cutoff: > 14.0 / 35Domain 3: Novelty & Originality (25 pts)
Cutoff: > 10.0 / 25Domain 4: Proposal Quality (10 pts)
No cutoffScore & >40% Cutoff Simulator
Drag the sliders (1.0 to 5.0 average reviewer score) to test total points and domain threshold eligibility.
Cutoffs are strictly greater than 40.0% (an exact 12.0, 14.0, or 10.0 does not clear the cutoff).
3rd-Reviewer Arbitration
An independent 3rd specialist reviewer is assigned automatically if:
- Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 differ by more than 15.0 total points (out of 100); or
- A domain average falls below the >40% cutoff while R1 and R2 differ by > 10.0 points in that domain.
Final score becomes (R1 + R2 + R3) / 3, with domain cutoffs re-checked on the 3-reviewer mean.
Top-10 Cutoff Tie-Break Order
Identical composite totals at the 10th finalist slot are resolved in priority order:
- 1st Priority: Domain 2 (Need & Future Impact , 35 pts)
- 2nd Priority: Domain 1 (Feasibility & Reliability , 30 pts)
- 3rd Priority: Domain 3 (Novelty & Originality , 25 pts)
- 4th Priority: Domain 4 (Proposal Quality , 10 pts)
Guaranteed Written Feedback for Every Team
What Your Official Evaluation Summary Report Includes
Every submitting team, whether shortlisted into the Top 10 or not, receives their 100-point domain breakdown plus written commentary across three structured sections:
1. Key Strengths & Highlights
What worked best in your research question, study controls, novelty, and clinical framing.
2. Methodological Limitations
Specific validity, feasibility, bias, sample-size, or ethical gaps noted by the two specialists.
3. Next-Step Recommendations
Actionable faculty advice to refine your protocol for ethics approval, grant funding, or future execution.
