BCI Awards Judging Guidance

At the BCI, we value transparency in all our processes. Therefore, we would like to share more information with you about the judges' role and the judging process. Our aim is to create a clear and inclusive environment where all participants understand how the awards are judged and what is expected from the judges.

Regional allocation of judges

  • We currently have a judging panel of 21 judges and we are hoping to appoint a further 15 judges for 2024.
  • The regional allocation of the Judges will be determined once the number of entries for this year has been determined.
  • Judges Reserves will be used if a judge is unavailable or a conflict of interest exists.
  • Judges are not allowed to nominate or be nominated for an award while they are active judges.

Head Judge Information

The BCI Board appoints the Head Judge position without a fixed tenure. The position will be reviewed every three years to ensure that it continues to meet the organization's needs.

The responsibilities for this role include:

  • Providing guidance on the administration and development of the BCI Awards program in collaboration with the BCI Central Office/Board.
  • Adjudicating any complaints received about entries for the BCI Awards.
  • Judging entries for the BCI Awards program as needed.
  • Representing the BCI at the annual Global Awards ceremony.
  • Participating in the selection and training of new awards judges.

BCI initial application assessment

  • The BCI Central Office (CO) will review all initial award applications to ensure they meet the award criteria. If an application does not fit the criteria, CO will remove it from consideration and inform the applicant of the withdrawal without providing a detailed explanation. It is the responsibility of applicants to review and comply with the application rules thoroughly. However, if an applicant disagrees with the decision, they can challenge it through the BCI complaints procedure.
  • If an applicant has won an award multiple times and is applying again, they need to provide evidence that is different from what they provided in the last 12 months. The CO will check for any copies or reused information.

An application will not be considered if it breaches any of the following criteria:

  • It goes against the application checklist.
  • It contains defamatory statements.
  • It contains conflict of interest statements*.
  • It has out-of-date or non-dated information.
  • It includes additional evidence, including hyperlinks.

* Conflict of interest statements typically disclose any relationships or connections that could potentially compromise an individual's ability to make an impartial decision. For example, if a judge has a personal or financial interest in a company that has submitted an application for an award, it could be considered a conflict of interest. Other examples of potential conflicts of interest could include familial or professional relationships with applicants, financial investments, or prior work experience with an applicant. Disclosing such conflicts of interest helps to ensure that the judging process is fair and unbiased.

Judge's responsibilities

To fully understand their role, judges must read the judging panel application rules and the learning outcomes from the judge's training program.

  • If a judge identifies false, misleading, or defamatory statements in an application, they must promptly notify the BCI Central Office in writing and provide details of their findings.
  • Judges are only allowed to score applications based on the given evidence and cannot conduct any additional research.
  • Applications that contain out-of-date evidence or evidence that does not meet the specified criteria will not be considered.
  • Applicants must achieve a score of more than 50% of available marks to be eligible for an award. This rule applies to categories with a single entrant as well.
  • Judges must provide a detailed explanation of their opinion as to why the applicant should win the award, comprising at least three sentences.
  • Judges should make every effort to attend the Regional virtual awards ceremony, when possible, as it is an important opportunity to recognize and celebrate the achievements of the award winners.

Moderation Meetings

Moderation meetings provide an opportunity for judges and the Head Judge to convene virtually and discuss any ambiguous issues related to judging, as mentioned previously. The Head Judge will lead the meetings, examining the evidence and scores and taking into account the judges' comments and scoring justifications. The objective is to ensure a transparent and equitable application process and select the most deserving award recipients. If a consensus cannot be reached, the Head Judge will make the final decision. These meetings are essential for promoting consistency, impartiality, and inclusivity in the judging process.

Moderation meetings will only be held in the following situations:

  • When there is a ten or more mark difference between the scores given by the judges.
  • When the top applicant scores are tied.

During moderation meetings, judges and the head judge will discuss any scoring discrepancies or ambiguities. The head judge will review the evidence, scores, and comments from the judges to ensure a transparent and fair application process and select the most deserving award winners. If the judges cannot come to a final agreement, the head judge will make the final decision.