SUBMISSION EVALUATION CRITERIA

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH EVALUATION CRITERIA

Each title will be evaluated out of 5 points.
1 Is the title of the Statement appropriate in terms of describing the study? (It should be short and concise, reflect the content of the study, be appropriate in terms of describing and generalizing the study)
2 Uniqueness of the subject of the study
3 Importance and rationale of the study (contribution to the field of public health)
4 Compatibility of the study with the main theme of the congress
5 Clearly stating the purpose of the study
6 Place, time, type of study
7 The universe of the study, sample size and sampling method
8 Inclusion or exclusion criteria
9 Data collection format of the study
10 Study (dependent-independent) variables
11 Specifying the statistical methods used in the study
12 Compliance of the findings section of the study with the aims of the study
13 Presenting the findings in an understandable and objective manner
14 Suitability of statistical analyzes in the findings
15 Presentation of statistical analysis results in findings
16 Statement of the important results of the study
17 Have significant/useful results obtained from the study?
18 Have recommendations been made based on study results?
19 Are the resources sufficient, up-to-date, relevant and appropriately selected? (Full text will be considered in statements)
20 Is the work written in an understandable way?
Scientific language should be used correctly, the article should not be too long, there should be no mistakes in grammar and abbreviations.

QUALITATIVE STUDY EVALUATION CRITERIA

1 Are the requirements related to research ethics fulfilled?
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes (5 points)
  • Ethical consent is not required (5 points)
2 Is the research methodology(focus group discussion, in-depth interview, document analysis etc.) explained?
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes, partially (2 points)
  • Yes, in concrete terms (5 points)
3 Are the selection criteria for participants and theparticipant selection methods specified?
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes, partially (2 points)
  • Yes, in concrete terms (5 points)
4 Are the duration of interviews and the characteristics of interviewers specified?
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes, partially (2 points)
  • Yes, in concrete terms (5 points)
5 Is sufficient information provided about data collection tools (semi- structured, in-depth interviews etc.)
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes, partially (2 points)
  • Yes, in concrete terms (5 points)
6 Are the data coding method (manual or a particular software) and the number of coders specified?
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes, partially (2 points)
  • Yes, in concrete terms (5 points)
7 Is the data analysis technique (such as thematic analysis) specified?
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes, partially (2 points)
  • Yes, in concrete terms (5 points)
8 Are the possible sources of bias and/or limitations in the study specified?
  • No (0 point)
  • Yes, partially (2 points)
  • Yes, in concrete terms (5 points)
9 (As shown in findings) Are the aims/objectives of the study sufficiently met?
  • Not sufficient (0 point)
  • Partially sufficient (2 points)
  • Sufficient (5 points)
10 Are the conclusions derived from study findings?
  • No (0 point)
  • Partially (some conclusions are not derived from study findings) (2 points)
  • Yes (all conclusions are derived from study findings) (5 points)
11 Have new questions, constructive suggestions or planned interventions been identified by the study?
  • No (0 point)
  • Partially (5 points)
  • Yes (10 points)
12 Are the keywords sufficient?
  • No (0 point)
  • Partially (2 points)
  • Yes (5 points)
13 Does the study contribute to the field of public health?
  • No contribution (0 point)
  • Limited contribution (5 points)
  • May have moderate contribution (10 points)
  • May have high contribution (20 points)
  • Excellent work, may have a huge contribution (35 points)

COMPILATION EVALUATION CRITERIA

* Marked titles will be evaluated out of 15 points, other options will be evaluated out of 5 points.
1 Title of the Statement: Is it appropriate in terms of describing the study? (It should be short, concise and meaningful, should reflect the content of the review, should be appropriate in terms of describing and generalizing the paper)
2 Subject of Compilation: Uniqueness of the subject and the compatibility of the compilation with the main theme of the congress
3 Purpose: Importance, rationale and purpose of the compilation subject
4 Data collection type: Information on when the compilation was made, using which basic sources, and by whom.
5 * Systematic of the Compilation: Have historical processes and basic-classical-traditional information been examined regarding the subject? Have any missing or controversial points been identified in the literature on the subject?
6 * Subject examination method: Has the collected information been organized from general to specific, in line with the conceptual framework, and given under headings?
7 * Evaluation / Findings: Existing information is separated and analysed. By making new syntheses, the content, unknowns or problems that will have significant benefits in its use are determined. Contrasts are displayed. Solutions to identified problems can be suggested. New research questions are created.
8 * Compilation success /Discussion/Comment: Is the information in the compiled articles appropriate for the purpose and justification? Is the information arranged in an order? Have the findings been presented in an understandable and objective way? Indication of important results of the study? Have recommendations been made based on study results?
9 Sources: Have sufficient number of up-to-date, relevant and appropriate resources been selected? Does it contain new information produced on this subject? Has enough literature been searched? (Full text will be considered in the papers.)
10 * Is the study written in an understandable way?: Scientific language should be used correctly, the article should not be too long, there should be no mistakes in grammar and abbreviations.