Pandemics project evaluation criteria

Below are the criteria that we use to evaluate projects on the Biosecurity Fundamentals: Pandemics Course. Project submissions will be anonymised and evaluated by a panel of experts, including course facilitators.

Clarity of communication and presentation

1. It's unclear what the key takeaways from the project are.
2. The project has a clear question, hypothesis or measurable goal OR is presented clearly (ie: easy for the reviewer to pick up on the key takeaways).
3. The project has a clear question, hypothesis or measurable goal AND is presented clearly (ie: easy for the reviewer to pick up on the key takeaways).
4. The above, plus it's a fairly easy and accessible read throughout. You expect the target audience could easily understand the key takeaways and conclusions.
5. The above, plus there's something special about the presentation. For example, it is particularly interactive/engaging/well designed.

Relevance to pandemic preparedness

1. The project is only tangential to biosecurity. For example, it might focus on general public health measures without specific relevance to high-consequence biological threats.
2. The work has some relevance to biosecurity, but might be fairly broad or generic. For example, a high-level overview of basic laboratory safety practices without addressing specific risks related to potential pandemic pathogens.
3. The work is clearly related to core biosecurity concerns: addressing the challenges involved in preventing, detecting, or mitigating high-consequence biological threats.
4. The above, plus the work explicitly explains its relevance to biosecurity. After reading, you'd feel confident explaining to someone else how this project could contribute to reducing catastrophic biological risks.
5. The above, plus it explains how it fills a gap in existing work or has a strong theory of change within biosecurity. This can include projects that ended up with negative results (e.g. "I tried to model this biosurveillance approach, and here's why it didn't work") or novel proposals for biosecurity initiatives that haven't previously been suggested.

Quality of research

1. The project appears rushed or poorly executed, lacking depth or rigour expected of a serious 20-hour effort in biosecurity research.
2. The project demonstrates a reasonable level of effort and understanding of biosecurity concepts, but lacks novelty or depth of insight.
3. The project presents a novel approach or insight in biosecurity. It contributes new information or perspective to the field, even if modest in scope.
4. The above, plus the project is impressive and captures your attention in a positive way. It also might offer clear guidance on next steps to pursue it further (e.g. there are concrete steps made explicit in a further work or next steps section or similar).
5. The project blows you away. If you knew people working in this area, you'd be excited to send this on to them for them to read it. Or if you were working in this area, based on this project you'd be excited to work with this person.