Skip to article frontmatterSkip to article content
Site not loading correctly?

This may be due to an incorrect BASE_URL configuration. See the MyST Documentation for reference.

Selection Criteria

Authors
Affiliations
University of Oxford
University of Toronto / University of Cambridge

Overall Principles

Submissions will be evaluated based on the quality of the participant’s engagement with the competition, the strength of their scientific reasoning, the clarity of their communication, and the extent to which they make effective use of the provided datasets and tools.

Because Connectome 2026–2027 is a learning-focused research competition, judges will value:

Participants will not be evaluated solely on the strength, novelty, or statistical significance of their findings. In many cases, unexpected, inconclusive, or null results can be just as scientifically valuable as positive findings.

Instead, judges will place greater emphasis on whether the analyses are appropriate and well-executed, whether conclusions are supported by the evidence and relevant scientific literature, and whether participants demonstrate thoughtful interpretation and meaningful engagement with the dataset.

Weighting

For participants being considered for awards and cash prizes, judges will evaluate both the written reports and video submissions.

The overall score will be weighted as follows:

Written Reports (60%)

Because participants submit work from two competition tracks, the written report component will be weighted according to the depth of work completed:

This weighting reflects the greater depth of analysis, independence, and scientific inquiry expected in Advanced-Level submissions while still recognizing engagement across both competition tracks.

Video Submission(s) (40%)

The video component will be assessed based on your strongest video submission.

Participants who submit separate videos for each track will be evaluated using the stronger of the two videos. Participants who submit a single combined video covering both tracks will be evaluated based on that submission.

This approach allows participants flexibility in how they communicate their work while ensuring that all participants are assessed on their ability to communicate scientific ideas clearly and effectively to a broader audience.

Written Report Selection Criteria

The written report is intended to resemble a scientific research report or manuscript, with expectations varying according to the competition level attempted.

1. Scientific Question and Rationale

How clearly does the report define the research question, motivation, or line of inquiry?

Excellent (4)

The report presents a clear, focused, and well-motivated research question or investigative aim. The rationale is compelling and grounded in neuroscience or connectomics.

Good (3)

The report identifies a clear question or aim and provides a reasonable explanation for why it matters.

Satisfactory (2)

The report indicates an overall topic or direction, but the rationale is somewhat general or underdeveloped.

Limited (1)

The report lacks a clear question, purpose, or rationale.

2. Engagement with Data, Tools, and Methods

How effectively does the participant use the provided datasets, connectomics tools, and analytical methods? Are the analyses sufficiently documented and reproducible?

Excellent (4)

The report demonstrates strong and appropriate use of the datasets, tools, and analytical methods. Methods are clearly described, analyses are well documented, and sufficient information is provided for others to understand and reproduce the work.

Good (3)

The report demonstrates clear engagement with the datasets and tools, with only minor gaps in explanation, methodology, or reproducibility.

Satisfactory (2)

The report shows some use of the provided resources, but the engagement is limited, uneven, or mostly descriptive. Important details regarding methods or analyses may be missing.

Limited (1)

The report shows little meaningful engagement with the datasets, tools, or analysis process. Methods are poorly documented or difficult to follow.

3. Analysis, Interpretation, and Scientific Insight

How well does the participant analyze the data and interpret the findings?

Excellent (4)

The analysis is well executed and the interpretation is insightful, balanced, and evidence-based. The report demonstrates strong understanding of connectomics and neuroscience concepts.

Good (3)

The analysis is appropriate and the interpretation is generally sound, with some evidence of deeper scientific understanding.

Satisfactory (2)

The analysis may be incomplete or just adequate, and the interpretation may often be incorrect.

Limited (1)

The analysis is minimal, unclear, or not meaningfully interpreted.

4. Organization, Clarity, and Writing Quality

How clearly is the report written and structured?

Excellent (4)

The report is well organized, coherent, and easy to follow. Writing is clear and polished, and the structure supports the scientific content effectively.

Good (3)

The report is well structured and mostly clear, with only minor issues in flow or expression.

Satisfactory (2)

The report is understandable but may have issues with organization, clarity, or consistency.

Limited (1)

The report is difficult to follow or poorly organized.

5. Figures, Citations, and Scholarly Presentation

How effectively does the participant use figures, references, and scientific presentation conventions?

Excellent (4)

Figures are used effectively and enhance understanding. Citations are appropriate and consistent. The report reflects careful scholarly presentation.

Good (3)

Figures and citations are used appropriately, with only minor issues in style or formatting.

Satisfactory (2)

Some figures or references are included, but they are limited in usefulness, incomplete, or inconsistently presented.

Limited (1)

Figures and citations are missing, minimal, or used poorly.

Video Submission Selection Criteria

The video submission is intended for a broader audience, including peers, educators, family members, and the wider Clematis community. It should communicate the participant’s project, ideas, or research journey in an engaging and accessible way.

1. Communication to a General Audience

How effectively does the video explain the project to viewers who may not have a neuroscience background?

Excellent (4)

The video is highly accessible, clear, and engaging for a broad audience. Complex ideas are explained effectively without oversimplification.

Good (3)

The video is understandable to a general audience, with only minor areas that may benefit from clearer explanation.

Satisfactory (2)

The video communicates the project, but some parts may be too technical, vague, or difficult for a non-specialist audience.

Limited (1)

The video is difficult to follow or is not meaningfully adapted for a general audience.

2. Storytelling, Structure, and Flow

How clearly and effectively does the participant communicate the scientific motivation, methods, findings, and conclusions of their project?

Excellent (4)

The video presents a clear and compelling narrative that accurately communicates the project’s motivation, approach, findings, and conclusions. The audience can easily understand both what was done and why it matters. Visual, creative, or multimedia elements are used thoughtfully to strengthen the storytelling and communication of scientific ideas.

Good (3)

The video is well organized and communicates the main components of the project clearly, with only minor gaps in flow or explanation. Visual or creative elements are used appropriately to support understanding and engagement.

Satisfactory (2)

The video communicates some aspects of the project effectively, but important details, connections, or transitions may be unclear or incomplete. Visual or creative elements may be limited, inconsistently used, or only partially support the narrative.

Limited (1)

The video lacks a clear structure, making it difficult to understand the project’s goals, methods, findings, or conclusions. Visual or creative elements are minimal or do not meaningfully support communication.

3. Engagement with the Project

Does the video demonstrate meaningful engagement with the competition, dataset, or research process?

Excellent (4)

The video clearly reflects meaningful engagement with the project, including thoughtful use of tools, datasets, analyses, or research ideas.

Good (3)

The video shows clear engagement and some reflection on the project or learning process.

Satisfactory (2)

The video shows basic engagement, but the connection to the project is limited or superficial.

Limited (1)

The video shows little meaningful engagement with the project.

4. Authenticity and Presentation Quality

How effectively does the participant communicate their own experience, perspective, or scientific journey?

Excellent (4)

The video feels authentic, confident, and well prepared. The participant’s voice and perspective come through clearly.

Good (3)

The video is clear and well presented, with a credible personal or project voice.

Satisfactory (2)

The video is understandable, but the delivery is uneven or somewhat generic.

Limited (1)

The video is poorly presented or lacks a clear personal or project voice.

Participation Certificate versus Awards

For participation certificate eligibility, the emphasis is on meaningful effort and engagement with the competition. Participants must achieve a score of at least 50% on both the written report component and the video submission component.

For awards and prizes, judges will look for stronger performance across the selection criteria.

2026–2027 Connectomics Research Competition
Writing Guide
2026–2027 Connectomics Research Competition
Important Dates