## Review Process

SPC submissions will be reviewed in the usual manner by the Conference Editorial Board for their suitability to be included in the technical program of the Conference. Those receiving high scores in the initial review will then be reviewed by the SPC Committee to short-list the Finalists. The nomination by faculty advisors is a very important document here (remember it must be received by the paper submission deadline).

### Evaluation and Review Criteria

The following evaluation and review guidelines will be given to the SPC Committee and the Reviewers:

Please use a percentage numerical score from 0 % - 100 % to evaluate a paper. In addition to the numerical score, you could provide a technical review of up to 1 page, like a review you would do for journals by assessing the scientific merit of the paper and the student’s contribution to the work. Your detailed expert review comments would be most useful to the committee.

Please use the following four main criteria to review the paper – each suggests some areas you might want to look into. The relative weighting of each area is shown in %. We need an overall % score for the paper - in order to try and calibrate the scores - aim such that anything > 90% is a world leading research paper.

**Q1. Is the scientific contribution of the work to the field real and identifiable? (35%)**

- Is the contribution evident from the paper?
- What of the scientific rigor?
- Is it of interest to the broader community of biomedical engineering?

**Q2. What is the technical quality of the paper? (35%) - Is there a good introduction to the problem and rationale for the study?**

- Is the solution logically developed?
- Is there a solid literature review placing this work in context?
- Is the methodology concise yet descriptive?
- Are the results clearly shown?
- Is the discussion section appropriate, logical and are the conclusions well defined?

**Q3. From the paper and nomination, how would you rate the contribution from the student author? (20%)**

- Is the students' contribution clearly visible?
- Where would this sit in comparison to the students' peer's work?

**Q4. Is the paper formatted and put together well (10%)**

- Are the spelling and grammar OK?
- Are the figures and tables appropriate, legible and necessary?
- Are figure captions complete?
- Are the references complete and do they strike the right balance (well-defined references and not too much self-referencing)?