IADR e-Oral Health Scientific Network Award

Applicants must be members of the IADR and IADR e-OHN Group or have made bona fide application to join at the time of submission deadline;
Have an abstract accepted for the IADR General Session;
Postgraduate researchers (this includes junior, senior, doctoral student, post-doctoral researchers);

The recipient must agree to have pictures or media taken during the e-OHN Group Meeting at the IADR General Session and agree to be posted on social media and related websites (e.g. the e-oral health network websites or the website of SUNSTAR). SUNSTAR and e-OHN members may also have permission to share. SUNSTAR and e-OHN members may also have permission to share.

Submit an abstract for the IADR General Session via the normal online process by the abstract deadline date and select the award during the abstract submission process. The abstract presenter will be entered for the competition. Co-authors, if any, should also be listed on both the abstract and the presentation itself.

•    Three awards will be granted to members of all regions. All abstracts submitted to the eOHN for the IADR General Session are subject to peer review within the eOHN scientific group of the IADR.
•    Once the abstracts have been accepted for presentation, they will be judged by the e-OHN SUNSTAR Award Committee.
•    This committee will be comprised of 2-5 members of the eOHN group with expertise in e-oral health. No panel member should have any conflict of interest regarding the proposed project.
•    The project with the highest total rank score of the judges will be the winner. In the case of a tie, the chair or member of the e-oral health network board will be consulted for the final decision. The decision will be final and not open to appeal. The e-OHN reserves the right to withhold an award. Previous winners are allowed to re-apply.
•    The three finalists with the highest score will be notified by email. Instructions will be given to the finalists once the selection has been made.
 

1.       Originality and design of the investigation.
2.       Quality of the data produced.
3.       Suitability of the methods of analysis used. 
4.       Scientific value of the work. 
5.       Quality of the writing and presentation (e.g., format, tables, figures).