Submission
Identify the entrant, work, contribution and supporting evidence. Obtain permission for third-party material and participant images. Claims must be verifiable; altered evidence may lead to disqualification.
Review criteria
Reviewers assess the nominated work against the following criteria:
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Relevance | 20% |
| Quality of implementation | 25% |
| Evidence of benefit | 25% |
| Professional responsibility | 20% |
| Learning others can use | 10% |
Two reviewers score each criterion. The evidence should connect the claimed contribution to what was delivered and what was observed. Differences in assessment are considered through a recorded review. A high total does not excuse deceptive evidence or an unresolved critical issue. Read the call for the eligible period and any requirements specific to the category.
Independence and decisions
Reviewers declare conflicts. Commercial support and membership fees do not secure a result. Decisions and the reasons supporting them are recorded.
Appeals
An eligible appeal may concern a procedural error, a material factual error, relevant new evidence that could not reasonably have been provided earlier, or an undisclosed conflict of interest. Explain how the ground could affect the decision and provide the supporting evidence.
Disagreement with a reviewer’s professional judgement alone does not justify a new score. Submit an appeal within 28 calendar days of notification, following the appeals procedure. That procedure explains admissibility, independent review and the effect of an appeal on the original decision.