SayPro Quarterly Science and Technology Competitions: Judging Process.

SayPro Monthly January SCDR-3
SayPro Quarterly Science and Technology Competitions by SayPro Development Competitions Office under SayPro Development Royalty SCDR

---

1. Purpose of the Judging Process

The SayPro Judging Process is designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and credibility in the evaluation of submissions for the SayPro Quarterly Science and Technology Competitions. This process aims to recognize and reward excellence, creativity, and innovative solutions in alignment with SayPro’s mission to promote youth development, science literacy, and technological innovation.

---

2. Key Principles

• Fairness: All entries will be evaluated objectively based on pre-established criteria.
• Transparency: The process, criteria, and scoring system will be communicated clearly to participants and stakeholders.
• Integrity: Judges will be selected based on their expertise, impartiality, and commitment to ethical conduct.
• Alignment: The judging process will reflect the objectives and thematic focus of the competition.

---

3. Judging Process Overview

A. Selection of Judges

Criteria for Judge Selection:

• Recognized experts in the fields of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Education.
• Representatives from academic institutions, research organizations, corporate partners, and development agencies.
• Prior experience in evaluating scientific or technology-related projects is an advantage.
• Gender balance and diversity considerations.

Number of Judges:

• A panel of 5 to 7 judges will be constituted for each competition cycle.

Judge Responsibilities:

• Review all eligible entries impartially.
• Provide constructive feedback on entries.
• Score entries based on the official evaluation criteria.
• Participate in panel discussions to finalize winners.

---

B. Development of Evaluation Criteria

The SayPro Development Competitions Office will develop a clear, comprehensive, and theme-aligned evaluation rubric.
Sample Evaluation Criteria (scored out of 100 points):

Criteria	Weight
Originality & Creativity	25%
Scientific & Technical Relevance	25%
Feasibility & Practicality	20%
Social & Developmental Impact	20%
Quality of Presentation/Documentation	10%

These criteria will be shared with participants at the start of the competition.

---

C. Entry Screening & Eligibility Check

Before the judging panel receives entries, the Competitions Office Team will conduct a preliminary screening to ensure:

• Compliance with competition rules and submission guidelines.
• Authenticity of submissions (no plagiarism).
• Completion of required documents and information.

Entries that do not meet eligibility requirements will be disqualified.

---

D. Review Process

1. Individual Review:
Each judge will independently review and score the eligible entries using the evaluation rubric. Judges will also provide written comments and recommendations for each entry.

2. Panel Discussion & Deliberation:
After individual scoring, the judging panel will convene (virtually or in-person) to:

• Review scores.
• Discuss top-scoring entries.
• Resolve any scoring discrepancies.
• Select winners and runners-up based on consensus.

3. Final Approval:
The final results will be reviewed and approved by the SayPro Development Competitions Office to ensure procedural compliance.

---

E. Announcement of Results

The winners and runners-up will be formally announced through:

• Official SayPro communication channels (website, social media).
• Direct emails to participants.
• Press releases to media outlets.
• Recognition during SayPro Events (virtual or in-person award ceremonies).

---

F. Feedback to Participants

To promote learning and development, SayPro will provide personalized feedback to all participants, highlighting:

• Strengths of their submissions.
• Areas for improvement.
• Recommendations for future competitions.

---

4. Ethical Guidelines for Judges

Judges will be required to:

• Sign a Conflict of Interest Declaration.
• Maintain confidentiality about entries and judging discussions.
• Abstain from judging entries where personal or professional relationships exist.
• Adhere to the principles of fairness and impartiality.

---

✅ Key Deliverables & Timeline

Activity	Responsible Unit	Timeline
Selection & Appointment of Judges	SayPro Development Competitions Office	01 – 10 January
Development of Evaluation Rubric	SayPro Development Competitions Office	01 – 10 January
Entry Screening & Eligibility Check	Competitions Office Admin Team	March
Individual Entry Review	Appointed Judges	March
Panel Deliberation & Scoring Finalization	SayPro Competitions Office & Judges Panel	March
Announcement of Winners	SayPro Communications Department	End of March
Feedback Reports to Participants	Competitions Office	Early April

---

If you’d like, I can now prepare a SayPro Judging Score Sheet Template to accompany this process.

Shall I proceed with that?