Who can participate?
Students working towards their Masters or PhD degree are encouraged to participate in the SPC.
Main goal of Student Paper Competition
Character of the Papers
Student Paper Competition Guidelines
Students interested in participating in the competition should:
- Prepare their manuscript following the ICMT 2017 guidelines as outlined in the conference web site. All papers must be within the 4 to 8 page limit.
- Submit their paper to the ICMT 2017 Conference as a Contributed Paper by the paper submission deadline.
- Inform their advisor's that they should also submit a Nomination email of 250 words (supporting the importance of the work carried out) for their student's entry by the paper submission deadline. The email should be sent to the Student Paper Competition Chair, email: email@example.com. A student may submit only ONE entry.
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?
- 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?
- Is the students' contribution clearly visible?
- Where would this sit in comparison to the students' peer's work?
- 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)?