Judging
How We Judge
A good judge should understand the project, ask useful questions, and explain the score. Our process gives judges time to do that and gives students feedback they can use.
Register as a judgeWhat we keep in mind
Research on expert scoring shows that first impressions, differences in judge severity, and panel discussion can all affect an evaluation. We account for those problems, while recognizing that no judging process removes them completely.
Independent panels and statistical review make results more consistent when the judging design and data support it. They do not make a winner objectively correct, replace scientific judgment, or eliminate the need for careful review.
One project, several views
01
Research paper
Reviewers check the research record and flag questions for the event.
02
Oral presentation
Students present and answer questions from one panel.
03
Poster session
A separate panel examines the methods, figures, results, and claims.
Oral and poster judges score independently before seeing the other group's evaluations.
What matters
Judges focus on scientific quality, evidence, original contribution, and the student's understanding of the work. They ask what the student actually contributed and whether the conclusion follows from the evidence.
Large datasets, expensive equipment, polished graphics, and mentor prestige do not earn points by themselves.
Questions and feedback
The strongest questions usually come from a student's previous answer. Judges are trained to follow claims into the figures, methods, and results instead of relying only on a prepared script.
After judging, students should receive a clear strength, limitation, alternative explanation, possible next analysis or experiment, and question worth pursuing.
How scores are reviewed
Judges naturally use scales differently. Where the judging design and data support it, ASERS uses statistical review—including Many-Facet Rasch Measurement (MFRM)—to study how strictly different judges score and make comparisons across panels more consistent.
Technical details
MFRM places project performance, judge severity, and criterion difficulty on a common measurement scale. It supports review; it does not replace scientific judgment or automatically determine winners.
Large differences between oral and poster evaluations may trigger review of judge comments, paper concerns, or specific scientific questions. Connected assignments with enough overlap between judges and projects make panel comparisons stronger.
The safeguards
- Multiple judges
- Expertise-aware assignments
- Separate oral and poster panels
- Independent scoring before discussion
- Conflict screening
- Review of large score differences
Judges receive guidance on evidence, student contribution, limitations, conflicts, and productive discussion. Consensus is not required.
Judge eligibility and conflicts of interest
Parents and legal guardians may not judge at a symposium where their student is competing. A student's current research mentor, advisor, principal investigator, direct supervisor, or anyone who substantially supervised or contributed to the project may not judge at that symposium.
Other relationships that could reasonably affect impartiality must be disclosed before judging. This includes teachers, former research mentors, collaborators, relatives, close family friends, and other personal, academic, or professional relationships. Judges with a conflict may not evaluate, score, rank, or deliberate on the affected student's project.
All prospective ASERS judges undergo identity, qualification, conflict-of-interest, and background screening before approval. ASERS may verify credentials, review disclosed and independently identified conflicts, and conduct appropriate background checks. Judges may be reassigned or deemed ineligible when a safety, integrity, qualification, or conflict concern is identified.
Top awards
The cross-category final
The strongest projects from each category advance to a final round in the auditorium. Finalists rank projects independently, discuss strengths, weaknesses, and unresolved questions, then submit a final private ranking for the highest awards across categories.
Register as an ASERS judge
Judge registration is opening soon. We are bringing together scientists, engineers, faculty, graduate researchers, and other qualified STEM professionals to work with local chapters and the National Symposium.
Registration form coming soon