SETAC Presentation Evaluation Criteria List

stats
python
Useful in Scientific Presentation Preparation.
Author

Zhenglei Gao

Published

April 4, 2026

Here’s a structured criteria list based on your request:

Criteria List

Introduction (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Background was relevant.
    • Connections to previous literature were clear.
    • A goal and logical hypothesis were stated clearly and showed clear relevance.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Background was relevant.
    • Connections to previous literature were made.
    • A goal and logical hypothesis were stated but relevance was not very clear.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Background was relevant.
    • Connections to previous literature were NOT made.
    • A goal and logical hypothesis were stated but relevance not clarified.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • No background or previous literature presented.
    • Goal and hypothesis inappropriate.

Approach to Work (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Innovative and strong methods and approach.
    • Appropriate use of controls or comparisons or references where relevant.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Strong methods or approach.
    • Appropriate use of controls or comparisons or references where relevant.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Acceptable methods or approach.
    • Slightly inadequate use of controls or comparisons or references where relevant.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Weak methods or approach.
    • No discussion of controls or comparisons or references where relevant.

Results (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • High-quality data were presented to address hypothesis or goal of project.
    • Presentation of data was clear, thorough, and logical.
    • Potential problems and alternative approaches identified.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Adequate amounts of reasonable quality data were presented to address hypothesis or goal of project.
    • Presentation of data was clear.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Some reasonable quality data were presented to address hypothesis or goal of project.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Data were lacking, not fully sufficient to address hypothesis or project goal.
    • Presentation of data was unclear.

Conclusions and Discussion (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Strong conclusions were developed and supported with evidence.
    • Major points and take-home messages clearly summarised.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Conclusions were developed and supported with evidence.
    • Some take-home messages somewhat summarised.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Some conclusions were given.
    • Take-home message only partly summarised.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Conclusions were not supported with evidence.
    • Major points and take-home message not mentioned.

Here’s the continuation of the structured criteria list based on your request:

Criteria List (Continued)

Flow (Organization and Transition between Intro, Approach, Results, and Conclusions) (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Presentation was engaging, well organized, with strong transitions, and easy to follow.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Presentation was well organized, some transitions made, and able to follow.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Presentation was somewhat organized, weak transitions made, and somewhat able to follow.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Presentation was not well organized, weak transitions, and hard to follow.

Scientific Objectivity (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Statements were supported by data, not opinions, and objectivity maintained.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Statements were supported by data, but some opinions slipped in.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Statements were somewhat supported by data, but opinions slipped in.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Presented opinions and objectivity was not maintained.

Mastery: Depth of Understanding and Knowledge of Field (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Presenter exhibited strong in-depth mastery of the field.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Presenter exhibited good knowledge of the field.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Presenter exhibited weak knowledge of the field.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Presenter exhibited superficial knowledge of the area.

Clarity of Language (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Presentation was very easy to understand by a diverse audience, not overly verbose or jargon-heavy, and defined all terms clearly.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Presentation was somewhat easy to understand by a diverse audience, with some use of jargon and some undefined terms.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Presentation was hard to understand by a diverse audience, included lots of jargon and undefined terms.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Presentation was very hard to understand.

Format (Layout and Visual Aids - Graphs and Diagrams) (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Format was innovative, very clear, and effective in conveying the message.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Format was very clear but lacking some effectiveness in conveying the message.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Format was only somewhat clear.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Format was hard to follow (e.g., too much detail).

Oral Delivery (10 points)

  1. Excellent (10 points):
    • Oral delivery was highly engaging, professional, clear, and concise.
  2. Good (8 points):
    • Oral delivery was somewhat engaging, professional, and clear.
  3. Satisfactory (6 points):
    • Oral delivery was not very clear. It was too fast or slow or used unclear sentences.
  4. Poor (4 points):
    • Oral delivery was not clear at all, nor was it engaging or encouraging focus.

Feel free to ask if you need any further adjustments or additional information!