IFTSA Undergraduate Research Competition

RULES AND GUIDELINES

BACKGROUND

Designed to showcase outstanding research at the undergraduate level, this competition seeks
students engaged in independent research who are interested in presenting at the IFT Annual
Event. Finalists will have the opportunity to network with industry and academic members.

PURPOSE

1. To encourage and stimulate interest in independent undergraduate research in the area

of food science and technology.
2. To provide an opportunity for undergraduates to organize and present their original
research through oral and poster presentations.
3. To provide an opportunity for networking within IFTSA for undergraduate students as
well as members of industry and academia.

SCHEDULE

Date Event
April 15, 2025 Application submission deadline
May 15, 2025 Finalists notified
July 13 - July 16, 2025 IFT FIRST in Chicago

ELIGIBILITY

1. Any student member of IFT, as of April 1, 2025, who is an undergraduate student.

2. Work must have been done individually by an undergraduate.
3. A signed letter from the Department Head or a professor verifying the originality of the
student’s work will be required. The letter and abstract must be submitted through the
IFT.org submission portal by April 15th at 11:59 pm CST (Chicago Time UTC-6).
Applications received after April 15th will not be accepted.

1
Revised October 2024
PRELIMINARY ROUND PROCEDURES

Application

1. To enter the competition, students must be student members of IFT by April 15th at
11:59 pm CST (Chicago Time UTC-6).
2. Abstracts must not exceed five hundred (500) words in length (titles not included), and
should include the study objective, methodology, results, and significance and
implications of results. At least five (5) pertinent references must be included.
References are not included in the word count and must follow the Journal of Food
Science citation style.
3. Two (2) versions of the abstract must be submitted. One must include the paper title, as
well as the name and address of the author. The second version of the abstract must
only include the paper title (no university or institution names included). In both versions,
no professors’ names may appear as co-author.
4. A letter, signed by the student’s Department Head or professor, verifying the originality
of the work, must be submitted.

Judging

Abstracts will be judged based on the criteria below and ranked as outlined in the supplemental
Operations Document. Finalists will be chosen by a jury of at least three (3) IFT members
representing academia, industry, and/or government as appointed by the Competition Chair.

1. Each submission will be reviewed by at least three (3) judges

2. Each entry will be scored based on 100 points, with the points to be distributed as shown
in the rubric.
3. Judges will select a maximum of six (6) finalists.
4. All competing teams will be informed of only their respective scores and judges’
comments. Each judge will provide 1-2 sentences of feedback at a minimum.
5. Finalists will be notified of their status by May 15th.
6. If selected, finalists will present their research as a poster AND oral presentation at the
IFT FIRST Annual Event.

FINAL ROUND PROCEDURES

Poster Presentation

Finalists will present their posters during the IFT FIRST Annual Event. Posters must be smaller
than the display board provided by IFT (3 ft. tall x 7 ft. wide).

1. Finalists will present their research to judges, as well as other event attendees, during
the 60–90-minute poster session.
2. The posters may include, but are not limited to, sections detailing
2
Revised October 2024
 a. The purpose of the work
b. Experimental methodology/design
c. Results
d. Significance of the results
3. All text and images should be with high resolution and be clearly visible from a short
distance.
4. Finalists are expected to stand by their posters during the poster session and be
prepared to introduce their research for 3-5 minutes and answer the judges’ questions.

Judging

1. Posters will be judged based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.

2. Posters will be judged by a jury of at least three (3) IFT members representing
academia, industry, and/or government.
3. No judge may vote on research presented by a member of their institution; adjustments
will be made for this factor.

Oral Presentation

1. Finalists will present their research during the IFT FIRST Annual Event.
2. The presentation is limited to ten (10) minutes per speaker, plus an additional five (5)
minutes to answer questions from judges.
3. The presentation should outline the scope of the research, study methodology and
design, results, and significance of the results.

Judging

1. Presentations will be judged based on the criteria outlined in the rubric.

2. Oral presentations will be judged by a jury of at least three (3) IFT members
representing academia, industry, and/or government.
3. No judge may vote on research presented by a member of their institution; adjustments
will be made for this factor.

AWARDS
1. A max of six (6) individuals will make it to the finals. The teams will all be judged against
one another in the finals.
2. Each finalist will receive a travel and registration reimbursement of up to $600.
3. The 1st place winner will receive $1,000, the 2nd place winner will receive $750, and the
3rd place winner will receive $500.

3
Revised October 2024
NOTE

• Any team or team member that does not follow the IFT Event Code of Conduct will risk
being disqualified.

Challenges and Penalties

Challenges based on rule infractions during oral presentations must be made immediately after
the presentation, and no later than the finalization of scores. It is the duty of the Chair to ensure
that infractions in written proposals and product tastings are noted. Scores should be
considered finalized by one (1) hour prior to start of the IFTSA Closing Ceremony. No
challenges will be entertained once this time has passed.

Challenges must be referred to the Chair and/or VP of Competitions. The Chair will refer
challenges to the VP of Competitions, IFTSA Office of the President, and IFTSA Staff Liaison. It
is the necessary duty that all Competition Chairs, VP of Competition, and IFTSA Office of the
President report any infractions they receive or notice during competition. Final decisions on
challenges, penalties, and IFT Code of Conduct will be made by the IFTSA Staff Liaison and
disseminated to necessary parties. This may include input from judges.

QUESTIONS

Contact the IFTSA Undergraduate Research Competition Chair via email at

[email protected].

4
Revised October 2024
 Undergraduate Research Abstract Rubric
Rubric
Explanation of objectives and background Experimental methodology Results Soundness and relevance of conclusions Professionalism, organization and style
Category
Points 20 10 25 25 20
Clarity of Research Objectives (10 Points) Appropriateness of Methodology (10 Points) Clarity of Results (10 Points) Logical Consistency of Conclusions (15 Points) Overall Organization and Structure (10 Points)
10-8 Points: The work is excellently organized, with a clear
10-8 Points: Research objectives are clearly and explicitly stated, 10-8 Points: The chosen methodology is highly appropriate for 15-11 Points: Conclusions are logically derived from the results and
10-8 Points: Results are stated in a clear, logical, and well-organized structure that enhances the flow and readability. Sections are
leaving no ambiguity. They are well-defined and specific. The the research objectives and is well-justified. The methods are are consistent with the data presented. They effectively
manner. logically ordered, and transitions between ideas are smooth and
objectives effectively guide the research direction. relevant and aligned with best practices in the field. summarize the key findings and implications of the research.
effective.

10-6 Points: Conclusions are generally consistent with the results,

7-4 Points: Objectives are stated and generally clear but may 7-4 Points: The methodology is appropriate but may not be the 7-4 Points: The work is generally well-organized, but there may
7-4 Points: Results are stated clearly, but the clarity could be but there may be minor logical gaps or overgeneralizations. The
lack specificity or some detail. There is room for improvement in most optimal choice. Justification is provided but could be be minor issues with the structure or flow. The order of sections
improved. summary of findings is adequate but could be clearer or more
how they are articulated. stronger or more detailed. is logical, but some transitions may be awkward or unclear.
precise.
3-0 Points: The methodology is inappropriate or poorly
3-0 Points: Objectives are vaguely stated or not clearly aligned 5-0 Points: Conclusions are poorly connected to the results, with 3-0 Points: The work is poorly organized, with sections that are
justified, raising questions about the validity of the research. 3-0 Points: Results are poorly organized or unclear, making it
with the research. There may be confusion about the direction significant logical gaps or unsupported statements. The summary out of order, missing, or confusing. The lack of structure
There may be better methods that were not considered or difficult to understand.
of the research. of findings may be unclear or inconsistent with the data. significantly detracts from readability and comprehension.
adequately explained.

Background and Context (10 Points) Interpretation and Explanation of Results (10 Points) Relevance and Significance of Research (10 Points) Clarity and Precision of Writing (10 Points)
10-8 Points: The research’s relevance is compellingly argued, with 10-8 Points: Writing is clear, precise, and free of errors. The
10-8 Points: The background is thoroughly explained, providing 10-8 Points: The results are thoroughly interpreted and explained,
strong logic showing how it fills a gap in the existing literature or language is appropriate for the audience, with technical terms
a strong context that situates the research within its broader with clear connections made between the data and the research
addresses a significant problem. The potential impact of the correctly used and explained. The style is professional and
field. objectives.
research is well-articulated. engaging.

7-4 Points: Writing is generally clear, but there may be some

7-4 Points: The research is relevant, but the logic for its
7-4 Points: The interpretation of results is generally sound, but may minor errors or awkward phrasing. Technical terms are used
7-4 Points: The background provides sufficient context, but may significance could be stronger. The potential impact is mentioned
lack adequate depth or clarity regarding its relevance to the correctly, but explanations may be lacking. The style is
lack depth or detail in some areas. but not fully explored, leaving some questions about its
objectives. professional, but there is room for improvement in clarity or
contribution to the field.
engagement.

3-0 Points: Writing is unclear or imprecise, with frequent errors

3-0 Points: The background is poorly explained or lacks 3-0 Points: The relevance of the research is weakly argued or
3-0 Points: The interpretation is weak or unclear, with little or confusing phrasing. Technical terms may be misused or not
sufficient detail, making it difficult to understand the context of unclear. The significance is not adequately supported, and it’s
connection made between the data and the research objectives. explained. The style may be unprofessional, overly informal, or
the research. difficult to see how the research contributes to the field.
difficult to follow.

Use of Statistical Analysis (5 Points)

5-4 Points: Indicates the use of appropriate statistical analyses. The
analysis appears to be correctly performed and interpreted.
3-2 Points: Statistical analyses are used, but there may be minor
issues with the choice of methods, their application, or the
interpretation of results.

1-0 Points: Statistical analyses are inappropriate, poorly applied, or

not used when they are needed.
 Undergraduate Research Oral Presentation Rubric
Rubric Category Explanation of Objectives and Background Research Design and Results Explanation and Soundness of Conclusions Ability to answer judge’s questions Visual Content Verbal Presentation
Points 15 20 15 10 15 25
Accuracy and Completeness of
Background and Context (10 Points) Explanation of Research Design (10 Points) Logical Consistency of Conclusions (10 Points) Structure and Flow (10 Points) Delivery and Presentation Style (10 Points)
Responses (10 Points)
10-8 Points: The presentation is exceptionally
10-8 Points: The approach to solving research 10-8 Points: The presenter answers questions 10-8 Points: The verbal delivery is delivered with clarity,
10-8 Points: The background information is thorough and 10-8 Points: Conclusions are logically consistent with well-structured, with a clear, logical flow that
objectives is well thought out and effective. The accurately and thoroughly, demonstrating a professionalism, and enthusiasm. The speaker engages the
relevant, providing a strong justification for the research the data and analysis presented, and they effectively enhances understanding. Each section
presenter clearly explains how the research deep understanding of the research and audience and uses appropriate body language and eye
objectives. address the research objectives. transitions smoothly into the next, creating a
directly addresses the objectives. related topics. contact.
cohesive narrative.
7-4 Points: The presentation has a logical
7-4 Points: Conclusions are generally logical, but there 7-4 Points: Responses are generally accurate, 7-4 Points: The verbal delivery is generally professional, but
7-4 Points: The background information is relevant, but 7-4 Points: The approach to solving research structure, but there may be minor issues with
may be some minor inconsistencies or gaps in but there may be minor errors or omissions. there may be occasional lapses in clarity or engagement. The
certain gaps may leave some research objectives objectives is generally effective, but there may be the flow or transitions between sections. The
reasoning. They address the research objectives, but The presenter shows good understanding but speaker's body language and eye contact are appropriate but
unjustified. some gaps in its explanation. narrative is generally clear, but some parts
not fully. may struggle with complex questions. could be improved.
could be better connected.
3-0 Points: The presentation lacks a clear
3-0 Points: The background information is either 3-0 Points: The approach to solving research 3-0 Points: Conclusions are illogical or inconsistent 3-0 Points: Responses are inaccurate or 3-0 Points: The verbal delivery lacks professionalism, with
structure, making it difficult to follow. Sections
insufficient or not directly relevant, making it difficult to objectives is inadequate, with aspects left with the data, failing to adequately address the incomplete, indicating a lack of understanding significant issues in clarity, engagement, or use of body
may feel disjointed, and the overall narrative is
justify the research objectives. unresolved or poorly explained. research objectives. or preparation. language and eye contact.
unclear.

Clarity of Research Objectives (5 Points) Presentation of Results (10 Points) Contribution to the Field (5 Points) Clarity and Precision of Slides (5 Points) Depth of Knowledge and Understanding (10 Points)

10-8 Points: Data (slides, figures, tables) is well-

5-4 Points: The objectives of the research are clearly 10-8 Points: The presenter demonstrates a thorough
presented, relevant, and enhances the 5-4 Points: The research clearly differentiates itself 5-4 Points: Slides are well organized, quickly
stated, providing a strong foundation for the presentation understanding of the topic, effectively addressing complex
presentation. They are effectively integrated into from existing literature and contributes to the field. understood, and visually appealing.
content. concepts and questions.
the talk.

7-4 Points: Data is generally effective, but there

3-2 Points: Most slides are well designed, but a 7-4 Points: The presenter shows a good understanding of the
3-2 Points: The objectives are stated, but may be confusing may be minor issues with visual communication 3-2 Points: The research contributes to the field, but
few have errors which distract or create an topic but may struggle with more complex concepts or
or unclear, affecting the clarity of presentation content. or relevance. They support the presentation but the impact could be greater.
inability to understand the content. questions.
could be improved.
3-0 Points: Data is poorly designed, unclear, or 3-0 Points: The presenter demonstrates limited
1-0 Points: The objectives are unclear or ommited, leading 1-0 Points: The research closely resembles existing 1-0 Points: Slides are poorly designed, leading
irrelevant, detracting from the overall understanding of the topic, with significant gaps in
to confusion about the purpose of the research. work and offers limited contribution to the field. to confusion and disinterest.
presentation. knowledge.

Timing and Pacing (5 Points)

5-4 Points: The presentation is well-paced, with time
managed effectively to cover all key points within the allotted
time.
3-2 Points: The presentation is generally well-paced, but a
few sections are either too fast to understand or too slow to
maintain engagement.

1-0 Points: The presentation is either rushed or too slow, with

poor time management affecting the coverage of key points.
 Undergraduate Research Poster Presentation Rubric
Rubric Category Objectives and background Experimental methodology Results Soundness of conclusions Organization and Writing Ability to Answer Questions
Points 15 15 20 15 20 15
Clarity and Detail of Methodological Description (10 Defense of Research Decisions From Judges' Questions
Clarity of Research Objectives (5 Points) Clarity and Organization of Results (5 Points) Logical Consistency of Conclusions (10 Points) Structure and Flow (5 Points)
Points) (10 Points)
5-4 Points: Research objectives are clearly and explicitly
10-8 Points: The methodology is described in detail, with 5-4 Points: Results are presented in a clear, logical, 10-8 Points: Conclusions are logically derived from 5-4 Points: The poster is exceptionally well-structured, with
stated, leaving no ambiguity. They are well-defined,
clear explanations of each step. The procedures are and well-organized manner. Data is easy to the results and are consistent with the data a clear, logical flow that enhances understanding. Each 10-8 Points: Provides thorough and convincing answers
specific, and directly aligned with the research question
logically organized, and the description is sufficient for understand, and the use of tables, graphs, and other presented. They effectively summarize the key section transitions smoothly into the next, creating a that justify decisions made in the research.
or hypothesis. The objectives effectively guide the
replication by others in the field. visual aids effectively enhances comprehension. findings and implications of the research. cohesive narrative.
research direction.
7-4 Points: Conclusions are generally consistent
3-2 Points: Objectives are stated and generally clear but 7-4 Points: The methodology is adequately described, but 3-2 Points: Results are presented clearly, but the 3-2 Points: The poster has a logical structure, but there
with the results, but there may be minor logical
may lack specificity or some detail. They are aligned some steps may be under-explained or lack detail. While organization could be improved. Visual aids are used, may be minor issues with the flow or transitions between 7-4 Points: Provides answers that somewhat justify
gaps or overgeneralizations. The summary of
with the research question, but there is room for the general approach is clear, there may be minor gaps but their effectiveness may be limited by minor sections. The narrative is generally clear, but some parts most most decisions, with minor gaps.
findings is adequate but could be clearer or more
improvement in how they are articulated. that could impact replication. issues in labeling, scaling, or presentation. could be better connected.
precise.

1-3 Points: Objectives are vaguely stated or not clearly 3-0 Points: The methodological description is unclear or 1-0 Points: Results are poorly organized or unclear, 3-0 Points: Conclusions are poorly connected to
1-0 Points: The poster lacks a clear structure, making it
aligned with the research question. There may be lacks sufficient detail, making it difficult to understand the making it difficult to interpret the data. Visual aids the results, with significant logical gaps or 3-0 Points: Struggles to justify decisions, with several
difficult to follow. Sections may feel disjointed, and the
confusion about the direction of the research, indicating procedures used. Key steps may be missing, or the are lacking or ineffective, leading to confusion or unsupported statements. The summary of findings key areas inadequately defended.
overall narrative is unclear.
a lack of clarity in the planning stage. organization may be confusing. misinterpretation. may be unclear or inconsistent with the data.

Interpretation and Explanation of Results (10 Implications and Significance of Conclusions (5

Background and Context (5 Points) Appropriateness of Methodology (5 Points) Clarity and Precision of Language (5 Points) Responding to Judge Criticism or Concerns (5 Points)
Points) Points)
5-4 Points: The background is thoroughly explained,
10-8 Points: The results are thoroughly interpreted 5-4 Points: The implications of the research are
providing a strong context that situates the research 5-4 Points: The chosen methodology is highly appropriate
and explained, with clear connections made between clearly articulated and well-supported by the data. 5-4 Points: Language is clear, concise, and free of errors. 5-4 Points: Responds effectively to criticism of the
within its broader field. The importance of the study is for the research objectives and is well-justified. The
the data and the research objectives. The discussion The significance of the findings is discussed in The terminology is used correctly, and explanations are research, supporting themselves with calm, clear, and
clearly demonstrated, with well-supported arguments methods are current, relevant, and aligned with best
is insightful and considers alternative explanations detail, with consideration of the broader impact on appropriate for the audience. logical reasoning.
that link the research to relevant theories or prior practices in the field.
where appropriate. the field or practical applications.
studies.

3-2 Points: The background provides sufficient context, 7-4 Points: The interpretation of results is generally 3-2 Points: The implications are mentioned but
but may lack depth or detail in some areas. The 3-2 Points: The methodology is appropriate but may not sound, but may lack depth or overlook some may not be fully explored or supported by the 3-2 Points: Language is generally clear, with minor errors or
3-2 Points: Responses to criticism are adequate but may
importance of the study is mentioned, but the be the most current or optimal choice. Justification is connections between the data and the objectives. data. The significance of the findings is areas of awkward phrasing. Terminology is mostly correct,
lack some clarity or logic.
connection to broader research or theories could be provided but could be stronger or more detailed. The explanation is adequate but could be more acknowledged, but the discussion could be more but some explanations may be unclear or confusing.
stronger or more clearly articulated. thorough. comprehensive.

1-3 Points: The background is poorly explained or lacks 3-0 Points: The interpretation is weak or unclear,
1-0 Points: The methodology is inappropriate or poorly 1-0 Points: The implications and significance of the
sufficient detail, making it difficult to understand the with little connection made between the data and 1-0 Points: Language is unclear or imprecise, with frequent
justified, raising questions about the validity of the conclusions are unclear or not discussed. The 1-0 Points: Fails to respond effectively to criticism, with
context of the research. The importance of the study is the research objectives. The explanation may be errors. Terminology may be misused, and explanations are
research. There may be better methods that were not conclusions may be superficial, lacking a discussion poor, angry, or non-existent reasoning.
not clearly demonstrated, and there may be little superficial, or key aspects of the results are not often confusing or inadequate.
considered or adequately explained. of the broader impact or practical applications.
connection to relevant theories or prior studies. addressed.

Relevance and Significance of Research (5 Points) Use of Statistical Analysis (5 Points) Use of Figures and Tables (10 Points)
5-4 Points: The research’s relevance is compellingly
5-4 Points: Appropriate and robust statistical
argued, with strong evidence showing how it fills a gap
analyses are used to support the results. The choice 10-8 Points: Figures and tables are well-designed, relevant,
in the existing literature or addresses a significant
of statistical methods is well-justified, and the and enhance the poster.
problem. The potential impact of the research is well-
analysis is correctly performed and interpreted.
articulated.

3-2 Points: The research is relevant, but the argument 3-2 Points: Statistical analyses are used, but there
for its significance could be stronger. The potential may be minor issues with the choice of methods, 7-4 Points: Figures and tables are generally effective, but
impact is mentioned but not fully explored, leaving their application, or the interpretation of results. The there may be minor issues with design or relevance.
some questions about its contribution to the field. analysis is adequate but could be improved.

1-0 Points: The relevance of the research is weakly

1 Point: Statistical analyses are inappropriate, poorly
argued or unclear. The significance is not adequately 3-0 Points: Figures and tables are poorly designed, unclear,
applied, or not used when they are needed. This
supported, and it’s difficult to see how the research or irrelevant, detracting from the overall presentation.
significantly weakens the validity of the results.
contributes to the field.