Judging Criteria and Process
We look at the question your research started from, and at whether you set out your own analysis and conclusions with a clear line of reasoning.
How we judge
-
The research
We look at how you worked
A clear research question, a method that fits it, evidence you can rely on and an analysis you can follow count for more than a showy subject.
-
Your thinking
We look for your own thinking
We look for your own reading of the material — your interpretation, your point of view, your reasoning and what you added — not a tidy summary of what others have written.
-
The whole paper
We weigh the whole paper
English is one part of it. So are the subject, the sources, the method, the analysis, originality, the structure of the paper and research integrity.
The judging panel
The judging panel is drawn from university professors in Korea and abroad, heads of research institutes and professional researchers, experts from industry and public policy, and international academic and education specialists, taking into account the field and subject of the papers submitted.
Experts from each field judge together
- University professors
- Drawing on academic expertise in fields such as economics, finance and business; AI, technology and engineering; science and the environment; and society, policy and international relations, they assess how well-chosen the research topic is and the depth of the analysis.
- Heads of research institutes and professional researchers
- Drawing on experience of research design, data collection and methods of analysis, they examine whether the research process is sound, the evidence reliable and the conclusions logical.
- Industry and policy experts
- Drawing on hands-on experience in areas such as economics, finance, business, science and technology, the environment and public policy, they assess the research's relevance to the real world, its originality and its significance for society.
- International education experts
- They look at how the English paper is structured and expressed, how clearly the research is communicated and its international perspective, and assess whether the student has set out their own ideas clearly in English.
Judges are assigned according to each paper's field, and several judges assess each paper independently against the same criteria.
To keep judging fair and independent, the names and affiliations of individual judges are not disclosed.
Criteria and weighting
- Research Topic, Significance and Clarity of Research Question
- 15
- Literature Review and Use of Sources
- 10
- Research Design and Process
- 10
- Evidence and Data Reliability
- 15
- Analysis and Logical Development
- 20
- Originality and Personal Contribution
- 10
- English Academic Writing, Paper Structure and Citation Accuracy
- 20
- Some slips in English grammar or phrasing will not cost you much, as long as the research itself comes through clearly.
- Fluent English will not carry a paper that is thin on the research question, the evidence, the analysis, or your own thinking.
How the review runs
From checking that entries meet the requirements, through review by specialists in each field and a research integrity check, to the final selection of winners.
-
Step 1
Basic Requirements Review
- Eligibility and application details
- Whether the paper arrived by the deadline
- Written in English, and within the word count
- Required sections present and files readable
- Required documents and the AI use statement
-
Step 2
Expert Review
- Reviewers assigned by research field
- Several reviewers score each paper independently
- Scored against the seven criteria
- Scores collected across reviewers
-
Step 3
Research Integrity Review
- Plagiarism and improper citation
- Signs of fabricated or altered data
- Invented surveys, interviews or experiments
- Ghostwriting, and breaches of the AI use rules
- Research notes, drafts and raw data requested where needed
-
Step 4
Final Committee Review
- The leading papers in each field read together
- Spread between reviewers' scores examined
- Ties and special award candidates discussed
- Final award levels and winners decided
-
Step 5
Announcement
- Winners published on the site
- Winners contacted individually
- Ceremony and publication arrangements explained
Tied
papers
Where two papers score the same, the following criteria may be compared in turn to decide the order.
1. Depth of analysis and logical development > 2. Originality and the entrant's own contribution > 3. Reliability of evidence and sources > 4. The research subject and the clarity of the question
The Ambassador Special Award
Papers on a subject related to one of the eligible countries go through a separate suitability review.
The paper is first judged against the ordinary criteria. We then look additionally at how well it understands the country, and at the strength of its forward-looking proposals for international cooperation.
- Understanding of the country
- Has the paper looked closely into the country's economy, industry, culture and society?
- Relevance of the subject
- Are the research question and the analysis closely tied to the country chosen?
- Balance of the analysis
- Is the analysis balanced, drawing on reliable sources and more than one point of view?
- Originality of the proposal
- Does it offer a fresh view or proposal on how Korea and the country might work together?
- Feasibility and future value
- Is the proposal concrete, and could it contribute to future development and cooperation?
- Candidates for the Ambassador Special Award are settled by the judging committee together with the country's embassy in Korea.
- Where no suitable paper is found, or discussions with the embassy are not concluded, no special award may be given for that country.
- The Ambassador Special Award is judged separately from the field awards, and one paper may hold both a field award and the special award.
Exclusion from review and withdrawal of an award
An entry may be excluded from review where
- the entrant does not meet the eligibility conditions
- the paper arrives after the deadline
- the paper is not written in English
- the word count or submission format is substantially breached
- the paper cannot be read because files are damaged or missing
- required documents or the AI use statement are not submitted
- the paper is substantially the same as a prize-winning, published or presented paper elsewhere
- plagiarism, fabricated or altered data, or invented research is found
- ghostwriting or improper use of AI is found
- entrant or guardian details were given falsely
Where a breach comes to light after an award
- An award may be withdrawn, even after the winners are announced, if a breach of research integrity, false information, ghostwriting or a breach of the AI use rules comes to light.
- Where an award is withdrawn, the certificate may be recalled, the award record removed and publication of the paper stopped.
Results
- Results are published on the official site on December 21, 2026, and winners are contacted individually.
- To keep the review fair and to protect the reviewers, the identities of the reviewers, individual scores and detailed assessments are as a rule not disclosed.
- Results are not reopened as a rule. Where there appears to be a plain administrative error — in an entrant's details or in adding up the scores — you may ask the secretariat to check within the period announced.