Embedded Files
Judge Registration Deadline: April 2, 2027
IMPORTANT!
All Judges Must Review Our New Guidelines, Criteria, and Tips
for Judging the "Virtual" Tri-County Science & Technology Fair!
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Judging Time Spent per Exhibit
Judging Time Spent per Exhibit
Because this fair is virtual, you can't question students directly. Judge based on the submitted videos and documentation:
Videos: Access them in your Judge's Portal. They may be narrated slides or include presenter footage. Some projects have multiple videos or contributors. High school exhibit videos must total no more than 15 minutes.
Documentation: Links are on your Judge's Portal and include a slideshow presentation, AI Use Logbook, and student questionnaire responses.
Time: Spend 30–60 minutes per exhibit: about 15 minutes for the video and at least 15 minutes for documents, questionnaire answers, and notes. This avoids rushed decisions.
Notes and scoring: Take detailed notes, stay objective and fair, and ensure you have enough evidence before submitting scores and comments through your Judge's Portal. Use the Judge's Calibration Chart as a guide.
Judging Criteria
Judging Criteria
Listen to Judge's Guide Podcast
Listen to Judge's Guide Podcast
Creative Ability - Click to Expand
Creative Ability - Click to Expand
Is this an original idea or an original approach to a new idea?
What sparked their interest (e.g., teacher, book, media)?
Did they reference prior work or ideas that motivated the project?
How did they form their hypothesis?
Did they explain why they chose their approach?
Does the project combine ideas from different fields or disciplines?
Does the project solve a problem in a novel or unexpected way?
Are there clear creative decisions in experimental design or data presentation?
Did the student design any original materials, apparatus, or techniques?
Does the student show ingenuity and resourcefulness with limited materials or time?
Does the student demonstrate the ability to improvise and adapt?
Did the student iterate on the design based on results or feedback?
Do they show genuine interest or enthusiasm?
Scientific Thought - Click to Expand
Scientific Thought - Click to Expand
Given your expertise, is the student's science sound? Do the premises and conclusions hold up?
Is the hypothesis testable and clearly linked to the experimental design?
Did they state the relationship they were testing between variables?
Did they identify key variables and explain how they were measured?
Which variables did they control, and why?
What constraints or variables did they not control?
Does the exhibit show organized procedures, accurate measurements, and/or observations?
Were controlled experiments conducted (if applicable)?
Did they acknowledge biases or sources of error?
Did they discuss lessons learned from their results?
Did they explain how results could change with different assumptions or parameters?
Does the exhibit demonstrate cause-and-effect reasoning, theory, analysis, and synthesis?
Is the project's scope indicative of substantial real study and effort (i.e., not just a demonstration or proposal)?
Thoroughness - Click to Expand
Thoroughness - Click to Expand
What sources did they use for research?
Is the literature review comprehensive and current for the topic?
Did the student consult subject matter experts or mentors, and cite input?
How completely has the student explored or studied the problem?
Was evidence gathered as data in notebooks, journals, or logbooks?
Are there bibliographies, charts, tables, and graphs?
Does the exhibit identify experimental organisms and/or apparatus?
How did they decide how much data to collect?
Were measurements precise enough to support their conclusions?
Did they follow relevant safety and research protocols?
Was there enough procedural detail that someone else could reproduce the work?
Did they need to change direction during the project? If so, was the reason valid and were methods adjusted appropriately?
Skill - Click to Expand
Skill - Click to Expand
Did the student follow relevant safety and research protocols?
Did the student construct their own apparatus?
Was the workmanship good?
Does the student show evidence of mastery of techniques?
Was there evidence that the student gained skills (programming, instrumentation, statistical reasoning) and can describe them?
Were instruments properly calibrated and measurement precision described?
Were measurements precise enough to support their conclusions?
How did they decide how much data to collect?
Did they need to change direction during the project? If so, was the reason valid and were methods adjusted appropriately?
Did the student analyze their data effectively?
Did they use statistical methods to interpret their findings?
Did the student distinguish correlation from causation?
Were any unexpected findings explained?
Were the conclusions based on sound judgment?
Did they acknowledge the use of artificial intelligence during the project?
Clarity - Click to Expand
Clarity - Click to Expand
Is the project’s purpose clear?
Is the key problem statement or hypothesis clear?
Can a non-expert understand the main idea within 2–3 minutes?
Does the presentation clearly explain what was done?
Did they highlight their main finding?
Did they explain why the finding matters and how it applies in the real world?
Are limitations and uncertainties stated clearly and simply?
Are abbreviations and acronyms defined on first use?
Does the exhibit provide a well-written, well-organized slideshow or poster board that is easy and clear to follow?
Does the exhibit provide: labels, guide marks, well-written descriptions, emphasis on important items, labeled graphs, labeled tables, legends underneath graphs and tables?
Were the video and documents easy to follow?
Are links to online video presentations and documentation working?
Are the sound and image on video presentations clear and easy-to-understand?
IRB & IACUC Protocols
IRB & IACUC Protocols
Click to Expand
Click to Expand
Consider whether the student followed required protocols. All exhibits must first meet WESEF standards!
MOST IMPORTANT: any project involving animals or humans must have Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) or Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, respectively. This requirement is mandated by all peer-reviewed journals and funding sources before a project is considered for publication or accepted for review.
This requirement MUST be approved by a teacher or mentor, and evidence of the approval must be included from any part of the submitted exhibit content.
If a project involving animals or humans does not show compliance with the appropriate IACUC or IRB protocol, assign the lowest score (0) for Thoroughness to exclude it from award consideration.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Use of Artificial Intelligence
Science Fair AI Policy and Documentation Requirement - Click to Expand
Science Fair AI Policy and Documentation Requirement - Click to Expand
Artificial intelligence (AI) tools—such as large language models, code assistants, and image generators—are valuable resources for research but raise important questions about originality, transparency, and scientific integrity. The Tri-County Science & Technology Fair permits the responsible use of AI as a research aid, provided students fully disclose how AI was used, verify AI outputs, and retain clear ownership of their work.
A formal policy and a simple AI Use Logbook are necessary to:
Ensure fairness by making all uses of AI visible to judges and reviewers.
Preserve academic integrity by distinguishing student-created ideas, analysis, and data from AI-generated content.
Support reproducibility and verification by documenting prompts, responses, edits, and validation steps.
Promote ethical awareness by requiring students to consider bias, limitations, and privacy when using AI.
Help mentors and reviewers evaluate the student’s understanding and contributions to the project.
Students must follow the accompanying guidelines and complete the AI Use Logbook whenever AI tools materially contribute to their project (e.g., literature searches, coding, analysis, figure generation, or writing assistance).
Failure to disclose or document AI use may affect project eligibility. If you discover misuse of artificial intelligence, you should notify the Judges Committee immediately. Assign the lowest score (0) for Skill to exclude the exhibit from award consideration.
Guidelines - Click to Expand
Guidelines - Click to Expand
I. Transparency & citation requirement
Students must disclose any AI tools used (LLMs, image generators, code assistants) and cite them in the abstract, logbook, and display. This disclosure must be in writing, using the attached template, and a declaration of such use must be included in any video presentation.
II. AI as a resource, not a substitute
AI may be used for literature searches, brainstorming, editing for grammar/clarity, or generating figures/code prototypes — but not to produce the core intellectual work, primary data, analysis, conclusions, or final report that the student claims as their own.
III. Student ownership and original work
The project must primarily reflect the original ideas, analysis, and interpretation of the student(s). AI-generated text or data cannot be presented as the original conclusions.
IV. Verification and accountability
Students are responsible for verifying facts, analyses, and outputs from AI tools with reliable sources and for documenting validation steps.
V. Documentation of AI interactions
Maintain a logbook/scientific journal (shown below) recording prompts, AI responses used, how outputs were edited, and how AI informed decisions. Include this documentation in project paperwork.
VI. Prohibited uses
Explicit prohibitions include: using AI to fabricate or manipulate data, to state conclusions, to write the project or abstract without attribution, or to impersonate human subjects.
VII. Ethics / bias awareness
Students should acknowledge potential AI biases, discuss limitations of AI outputs in their project write-up, and take steps to mitigate bias where relevant.
VIII. Display and judging rules
Exhibit materials must be the students’ own wording; displays should note any AI-created images/figures and, where required, function without internet access. Judges evaluate students’ understanding of methods and AI’s role.
IX. Consultation and approvals
Students must consult mentors/teachers and obtain Scientific Review Committees (SRC) and Institutional Review Boards (IRB) approval when AI is used in study design or in ways that affect human-subjects, data collection, or interpretation.
Artificial Intelligence LogBook Template
Artificial Intelligence LogBook Template
Student Questionnaire
Student Questionnaire
Students must complete a questionnaire for judges to evaluate their exhibits across core academic areas. The assessment requires answering 17 mandatory questions and choosing 3 out of 6 additional elective questions. These questions examine methodology, ethical standards, personal growth, creative ability, and scientific thought by exploring how participants handled experimental variables and technical challenges. The evaluation also emphasizes thoroughness, communication clarity, innovation, and real-world impact. Ultimately, this structured assessment serves as a formal framework to measure technical skill, originality, and the overall rigor of the student's work.
Current Student Questionnaire - Click to Expand
Current Student Questionnaire - Click to Expand
Abstract (500 words or less) (Judge for Creative Ability, Clarity)
What question should a judge ask about your results not covered by the remaining questions, and how would you answer? (Judge for Clarity)
Why did you choose to investigate this research topic? How did you develop your idea, and what inspired you to do this research? How did you grow from this research experience? (Judge for Creative Ability)
What was the role of your mentor/supervisor in your research project? What was the best part of working with that person, and how did it change your insight into your research? (Judge for Creative Ability)
How did you decide how much data to collect and which variables to measure? How did you ensure the data were accurate and reliable, and what relationships did you find? (Judge for Scientific Thought, Thoroughness, Skill)
Which variable mattered most in your research, and how did you measure it? Which variables did you control, and how did you deal with any outliers, bias, or errors? (Judge for Scientific Thought, Skill)
How did you analyze and interpret your data? What mathematical and/or statistical test(s) did you use to analyze your data and why? If you did NOT perform statistical analysis on your data, please describe the mathematical reasons why you didn't. (Judge for Scientific Thought, Skill)
Was there an alternate methodology that you considered? If so, why did you choose this methodology over the alternatives? (Judge for Scientific Thought)
What were the biggest challenges you faced in your research, how did you stay resilient, and what did you do to fix the problem? (Judge for Thoroughness)
If you repeated the research, what would you change? How would you expand it with more time or resources? (Judge for Thoroughness)
If someone else repeated your research with the same materials and scientific method, would they get the same results? Why or why not? (Judge for Scientific Thought, Clarity)
How did your research follow all appropriate and relevant safety and research protocols? What steps did you take to ensure your research adhered to ethical standards? (Judge for Thoroughness, Skill)
Why did you choose your sources/references, and how did your review of scientific literature help you most with your research project? How did you make sure your research was thorough and plagiarism-free? (Judge for Thoroughness)
What did you learn from your research, and what follow-up research would you suggest? (Judge for Thoroughness)
What is the importance, impact, and benefits of your findings? What, if any, are the societal, ethical, or interdisciplinary implications that could inform policy, industry practices, or ethical debates? (Judge for Clarity)
What is the most significant accomplishment and innovation from your research? (Judge for Creative Ability)
How can your research findings be applied to the real world in the future? (Judge for Clarity)
Additional Questions (Select only three to answer)
How would you explain your research in simple terms to a middle school student who wants to base their science project on it? If you were mentoring them, what guidance would you give and why? (Judge for Creative Ability, Clarity)
What new skills and/or techniques did you learn and use? Explain the new skills and/or techniques, how you used them, and why they were important. (Judge for Skill)
Explain how your research approach was unique or novel and how it led to better results. What makes your research different from others on this topic? (Judge for Creative Ability)
What past research supports or challenges your conclusions, and how did it shape your approach? (Judge for Scientific Thought)
What are the main limitations of your results, and how do they affect your conclusions? What critique of your work would be hardest to address, and how would you respond? (Judge for Thoroughness)
What surprised you during your research, or what would have surprised you if it had happened? Why do you think that? (Judge for Scientific Thought, Clarity)
Tips for Judging Effectively
Tips for Judging Effectively
Student Presentation Template
Student Presentation Template
Conventional poster boards for in-person science fairs, including those used in WESEF may not render well in a video presentation for our virtual format. We offer a Google Slides template that we advise students to use instead of a poster board because the text in some poster images are difficult to read online.
The template contains the minimum required content for a project. The template may also be used and serve as the basis for the video presentation.
Students may use it in Google Slides or export it as a PowerPoint or PDF.
Some students may still elect to use a poster board image. Score its Clarity accordingly.
Regardless of format, confirm the poster or slideshow includes the template's required content.
Basis for Your Evaluation
Basis for Your Evaluation
Treat every exhibit the same, no matter how many contributors. Score group projects as one unified entry—expect shared work and different roles. Don’t base the score only on the best or worst contributor.
Because you can’t question students directly, base your score only on their submitted videos and documents. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence!
Focus on the judging criteria: Creative Ability, Scientific Thought, Thoroughness, Skill, and Clarity.
As a project auditor, don't infer—require proof and score accordingly.
Personal Reflections from the Student(s)
Personal Reflections from the Student(s)
Did they explain why they chose the project?
Did they describe the most interesting part of their project?
Did they note a moment they felt especially proud or motivated, and why?
Did they find anything surprising, and how did it impact their conclusions?
Did they share how their thinking changed during the project?
Did they disclose any mistakes they made and how they corrected them?
Did they convey the most important thing they learned?
Did they mention what they would do differently, or how they would follow up on their research?
Did they acknowledge the support from others in their research?
Additional Line of Questions
Additional Line of Questions
If you were their mentor or teacher, how would you grade their project?
What advice would you give to improve their project and why?
What would you do differently if this was your research?
You don’t have to use only the questions above — be creative!
Use your technical knowledge to ask Socratic questions that probe their work.
Make sure to ...
Evaluate ALL the content, not just the presentation. This is especially important when determining compliance for IRB/IACUC and use of AI.
Judge scientific rigor, ethics, and student understanding only from documented evidence—raw data, graphs, methods, stats, repeated trials, techniques, videos, slideshows, logs, and AI disclosures.
Lower Clarity scores for unclear documents, videos, etc., and broken links.
Lower Skill scores for missing documentation (logbooks, protocols, AI logs) or AI misuse.
Lower Thoroughness scores for IRB/IACUC non-compliance.
Use consistent scoring standards (see below) across projects and record reasons for low scores.
Report any conflicts-of-interest with students, schools, or topics. Follow relevant instructions.
Review the YouTube video course: How to Become an Effective Judge in the Virtual Tri-County Science & Technology Fair
Scoring Scheme
Scoring Scheme
This scoring scheme provides a comprehensive grading framework for evaluating your assigned exhibits based on specific performance levels and academic standards. The Judge's Calibration Chart describes how to assess exhibits across five core categories of Creative Ability, Scientific Thought, Thoroughness, Skill, and Clarity. This matrix defines point values from zero to ten, linking high scores to novel interdisciplinary approaches and low scores to a lack of original effort. The Scoring Descriptors Chart complements this by mapping numeric scores to letter grades and award eligibility, ranging from outstanding first-place work to failing marks for missing safety documentation. Together, these rubrics ensure that judges apply consistent criteria when measuring a student's mastery of the scientific method and technical execution. These tools serve to standardize the assessment process, providing clear examples of what constitutes an award-winning science fair project.
Use the Judge's Calibration Chart to help align your scores for each criterion:
Listen to Judge's Calibration Chart Podcast
Listen to Judge's Calibration Chart Podcast
Overall Scores
We calculate an exhibit's Overall Score on a 0-100 scale using a geometric mean of the judge's criteria scores with the following weights:
Creative Ability: 20%
Scientific Thought: 35%
Thoroughness: 20%
Skill: 10%
Clarity: 15%
The Final Rating of an exhibit, which determines its rank among other exhibits in its category, is based on the mean of all the Overall Scores for that exhibit across all judges, statistically adjusted (using Z-scores) for variation in scoring among judges and compensating for especially lenient or strict judges.
After all scoring is completed, we...
... post results to this website and disclose the basis for awards
... publish results on local and social media.
... email award winners and teachers
... mail awards plaques
... survey judges and distribute link to Networking Directory
Bottom Line
Bottom Line
Why follow this Rubric?
For judges: It replaces impression-based, in-person evaluations with verifiable, standardized, document-focused assessment. Clear disqualifiers and explicit criteria reduce bias. You're not guessing—you're auditing.
For students: It rewards thoroughness and transparency over showmanship. Honest, well-documented work with AI disclosure beats a polished presentation that conceals shortcuts. The questionnaire promotes reflection and clear reasoning, not just results.
For fairness: It prevents skewing outcomes by using a weighted geometric mean with Z-score adjustment and compensating for lenient or strict judges.
For integrity: It aligns with professional research standards and protects the fair’s credibility because:
Absolute requirements for IACUC/IRB and AI compliance underscore that ethics are non-negotiable.
Broken links or unintelligible audio reduce clarity scores.
Judges with potential conflicts of interest with a student, school, or topic recuse themselves from evaluating affected exhibits.
Please direct any judging questions or comments regarding this Rubric to the Judges' Committee at Judges@DiscoveryCtr.org or 845-621-1260 x-402.
Please direct any judging questions or comments regarding this Rubric to the Judges' Committee at Judges@DiscoveryCtr.org or 845-621-1260 x-402.
Please proceed to the next section to learn more about Participating Schools & Conflict of Interest.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse