The preliminary and final evaluations of applications submitted to the Sosyalfest 2025 Social Model and Health Model Design Competitions will be conducted by commissions specially established for each competition. Accordingly, there is a separate evaluation commission for each social model and health model design competition. Each member of the relevant commission is an expert with sufficient experience and intellectual and academic background regarding the content and outcomes of the competition. Applications submitted to the competitions will undergo a preliminary review based on evaluation criteria determined by the commissions. During preliminary evaluation, compliance with general conditions, special conditions, and ethical rules will be examined, as well as the originality of the designed model, problem analysis, solution method, and widespread impact function.

Following the preliminary review, the top 15 models with the highest scores (provided they receive at least 50 points in the preliminary evaluation) will proceed to the final evaluation. During the final evaluation, compliance with general conditions, special conditions, and ethical rules will again be assessed, along with the originality of the model, problem analysis, solution method, and widespread impact function, based on a specific scoring system. The top three designs will be determined for each model design competition following the final evaluation.

Preliminary Evaluation Criteria

Originality (0 - 25 Points)

The problem(s) addressed by the proposed model are realistically expressed. The proposed model solves the problem or improves the system/structure in an area that needs development. The originality of the project is clearly and understandably articulated.

Methodology (0 - 30 Points)

The complete process for achieving the project’s objective should be explained. The proposed method and its advantages over alternative methods should be specified.

Feasibility (0 - 30 Points)

The proposed model is feasible, sustainable, and advantageous in terms of cost-benefit.

Widespread Impact (0 - 15 Points)

Social / Economic / Environmental / Cultural / Sports

The proposed model has a high impact at local, regional, national, and international levels. The model affects a wide audience.

Final Evaluation Criteria

Originality – A (0 - 15 Points)

The problem(s) addressed by the proposed model are realistically expressed. The model solves the problem or improves the system/structure.

Originality – B (0 - 10 Points)

The originality aspects of the project are clearly and understandably explained.

Methodology (0 - 30 Points)

The complete process to achieve the project’s goal must be described. Advantages over alternative methods must be stated.

Feasibility – A (0 - 10 Points)

The model is feasible.

Feasibility – B (0 - 10 Points)

The model is sustainable.

Feasibility – C (0 - 10 Points)

The model is cost-benefit advantageous.

Widespread Impact – A (0 - 10 Points)

Social / Economic / Environmental / Cultural / Sports

The model has a high local, regional, national, and international impact.

Widespread Impact – B (0 - 5 Points)

Social / Economic / Environmental / Cultural / Sports

The model affects a wide audience.

Explanation of Criteria

Originality

The proposed model solves the problem or improves the system/structure in an area needing development. The originality of the project is clearly and understandably expressed.

Methodology

The problem(s) addressed by the model are realistically expressed.

Feasibility

The proposed model is feasible, sustainable, and advantageous in terms of cost-benefit.

Widespread Impact

The model has high local, regional, national, and international impact. It affects a wide audience.

Scoring Levels

Excellent (81-100):

The model design fully meets the relevant criterion in all aspects. There are almost no deficiencies. Minor flaws may be acceptable.

Good (61-80):

The model design meets the criterion well. However, some points could still be improved.

Average (41-60):

The model design meets the criterion moderately. Improvements are needed.

Poor (21-40):

The model design does not adequately meet the criterion. There are significant shortcomings.

Insufficient (0-20):

The model design fails to meet the criterion. There are serious deficiencies and weaknesses.