Evaluation Criteria

All abstracts submitted to the Global Digital Health Forum will undergo a structured peer review process. Submissions are assessed by a panel of experts based on relevance, quality, clarity, and potential impact.

The evaluation is guided by the following criteria:

1. Relevance to Track - How well the abstract aligns with the selected track and its objectives. Submissions should clearly demonstrate a strong and appropriate fit.

2. Importance of the Problem - The significance of the issue being addressed, including its relevance to public health priorities and potential to contribute meaningful impact.

3. Clarity and Engagement - The overall quality of writing, structure, and organization. Abstracts should be clear, well-articulated, and accessible to a broad audience.

4. Clarity of Objectives - The extent to which the objectives are clearly defined, coherent, and logically presented.

5. Methods and Approach - The appropriateness and rigor of the methods, design, or approach used to address the stated objectives.

6. Results and Evidence - The strength and clarity of results or findings (where applicable), including the quality of supporting evidence.

7. Conclusions and Interpretation - Whether conclusions are well-supported by the evidence presented and appropriately framed.

8. Practical Utility and Implementation Value - The extent to which the submission offers actionable insights, lessons learned, or practical applications for programs, policy, or practice.

9. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion - Consideration of diversity, equity, and inclusion where relevant. Strong submissions demonstrate thoughtful integration of inclusive approaches and equitable impact.