top of page
Categories: In Gogec, there will be different judging criteria for teams with different types of projects. A team can a proposal, an experimental or a computational project, with teams having experimental and computational aspects competing in the experimental category.




Project Value
The team provided an accurate, thorough description of the problem, unmet need, or research gap that they are addressing and communicated the importance of this topic. They are able to justify how their design is an appropriate approach to address this problem or research gap.


  The team should have a list of several specific aims (around three is a good goal), which are smaller goals and research questions that are needed to be accomplished in order to meet the overall project goal. Additionally, each specific aim should have sub-aims (around two per aim is a good goal) which further break down the aims into smaller research questions or gaps that need to be addressed. Teams will be evaluated based on how well their specific aims address all of the necessary research questions needed to complete their stated project goal.


The team provided a comprehensive set of experimentation and hypotheses needed to fully prove their design’s efficacy. The experimental methods are sound and have the necessary controls and replicates. Any hardware created will be evaluated in this component.



The team’s visual abstract has a clear meaning and is visually pleasing. The presentation slides were well designed and the presenter spoke clearly. The team was able to competently address questions.
Visual and Oral
Human centered
The team's design applied the principles of Human-centered design as defined below. The team identified the stakeholders relevant to their project and determined what questions the stakeholders would like to see addressed in the team's work. In the case of SynBio tool developments, other researchers who will be using these tools are valid stakeholders whose needs should be considered.  


Written Communication
The team produced a written report similar in content and quality to a traditional research paper.


If the team addressed similar work that others are doing in the field, they were able to identify how their approach was original. The team can explain the process that led to the conceptualization of their project if asked.


Biosafety and Biosecurity


The team has provided a statement in their written report critically evaluating their project from a biosafety and biosecurity viewpoint. The teams should identify any risks that may be connected to their project, either now or in the future. This includes thinking about matters such as dual use, containment, and proper laboratory practices. Furthermore, teams should present possible procedures or practises that have been or could be used to manage the identified risks and have implemented them in their own work when applicable. For computational teams, this would include identifying any risks with implementing their computation in a wetlab setting and reducing any risks associated with the topics that they choose to model. If no risks are identified, the team should be able to explain their logic that led to the conclusion.

Responsible Research Conduct


This section awards teams for following proper research ethics and integrity practices that are not already judged in the aforementioned categories. This includes *Proper and consistent citation *Proper writing, paraphrasing, and use of direct, cited quotations to avoid plagiarism *including a declaration of conflicts of interest statement within the written report and *making raw data accessible as per Gogec’s data accessibility policy



What is human-centered design?

“Human-centred design is an approach to interactive systems development that aims to make systems usable and useful by focusing on the users, their needs and requirements, and by applying human factors/ergonomics, and usability knowledge and techniques. This approach enhances effectiveness and efficiency, improves human well-being, user satisfaction, accessibility and sustainability; and counteracts possible adverse effects of use on human health, safety and performance.” - Ergonomics of human-system interaction, 2019

Medals and Awards

The scores awarded for each judging criteria component will be averaged across all judges, and each component will be summed to create the overall score. In the case of an experimental category team also conducting computational work, the team will be eligible for bonus points of 25% of their “computational validity” score (5 possible bonus points). 

The medal breakdown is as follows (may be subject to change).

Gold tier: 105 points or higher

Silver tier: 85 to 104 points

Bronze tier: 70 to 84 points


For each category, the overall winner and runner-up will be announced based on the top two scoring projects.


Teams will be disqualified if they do not follow the biosafety and biosecurity guidelines and the data accessibility policy unless they have been granted an exemption prior to the competition date. Teams will also be disqualified if they falsify data or commit plagiarism.

bottom of page