Credibility of ISSN Awards

We understand that award notifications can sometimes raise concerns, especially in today’s digital environment. We’re writing to confirm that the International Society For Scientific Network Awards is a legitimate and respected initiative organized by WRC and Oxford Research to recognize excellence in research field.

To provide clarity:

  1. Established Reputation: The International Society For Scientific Network Awards has been active since 2021, with a strong history of recognizing impactful research. We now receive over 2,500 applications annually, a number that continues to grow—highlighting the trust and interest we’ve earned within the academic community.

  2. The delegate fee: This fee covers the administrative services, benefits, deliverables associated with the recognition and other paid services.

  3. Transparent Review Process: Submissions are reviewed by an independent committee of scholars (WRC, Oxford Research) and professionals in the field. Evaluation criteria are publicly listed on our website in FAQ (Judging Criteria).

  4. Recognition and Impact: Winners receive [certificates/International Collaborations/recognition], and are featured in event.

  5. Verification: For additional verification, feel free to explore queries in issnawards@gmail.com

Selection Criteria

The ISSN Award is given to individuals who have made a significant contribution to knowledge or academic excellence. This contribution could be a long-term, cumulative contribution or a single, particularly insightful idea, experiment, application or interpretation.

The selection committee may consider the following criteria in selecting the recipient:

  • In general, the candidate should have already published work which is widely recognized.
  • Demonstrated excellence in research, scholarly work.
  • Recognition by professional societies, community organizations or other external bodies.
  • Contributions to the research environment both locally, nationally, and internationally.
  • Contributions to the training and education.
  • Promise a substantial impact not only on their research community.
  • The technical soundness of the proposed approach.
  • The proposer’s recent research performance.
  • On the basis of new discoveries or fundamental advances within its field of science and engineering.
  • Contribute to the basis for new or improved technology or solution of societal problems.
  • To have better understanding or improvement of the quality, distribution, or effectiveness.
  • Terms of the clarity of the aims, the significance of the problem, and the adequacy of the methods and procedures for achieving the aims.
  • Will consider the feasibility of the proposed research.
  • Are the proposed research question, design, and methodology of significant scientific and technical merit?
  • Is the plan for developing/enhancing the Nominee’s research skills appropriate and adequate?
  • A sustained record of research publications in peer-reviewed journals, research monographs, and/or research-oriented texts.
  • Publication awards or other forms of honorary recognition.
  • Publications by others in the field that make substantial use of the nominee’s publications.
  • Substantial positive impact on the field.
  • Record of presenting at national and/or international conferences.

Judging Criteria :

PROCESS AND STEPS INVOLVED IN IT: There are two types of procedures involved in the process that is 1) Article based selection  2) Self Nomination Article based selection

Evaluation by committee Members

  • Panel Composition:
    The judging panel comprises members from various disciplines to ensure a balanced and multidisciplinary evaluation.

  • Evaluation Scope:

    • In the case of article-based selection, panel members will review and evaluate the research articles.

    • In the case of self-nomination, the evaluation will be based on the candidate’s professional profile, including research achievements, publications, impact, and supporting documentation.

  • Scoring System:
    Each criterion will be assessed using a standardized score ranging from 0 to 10, where:

    • 0 = Not Demonstrated

    • 5 = Meets Expectations

    • 10 = Outstanding Performance

  • Assessment Criteria:
    Evaluation will be conducted according to the predefined Research Award Judging Criteria, which include:

    • Originality and Innovation

    • Scientific Impact

    • Methodological Rigor

    • Publication Quality

    • Societal Relevance

    • Leadership and Collaboration

    • Sustainability of Research

    • Prior Recognitions

  • Confidentiality and Integrity:
    All evaluations will be conducted confidentially, with panel members required to maintain impartiality and declare any conflicts of interest.

  • Once the committee’s decision is final, an official acknowledgment will be sent to the corresponding winner. This notification will include details regarding the award, ceremony (if applicable), and any further instructions.

Evaluation Criteria 

    General:

  • Uniqueness of the research idea or approach

  • Introduction of new concepts, models, or methodologies

  • Creativity in problem-solving or experimentation

    Researcher:

    • Originality, depth, and innovation in research work

    • Contribution to theoretical or applied knowledge

    • Alignment with current scientific challenges and future directions

    1. Publication Quality

    • Number and quality of peer-reviewed publications

    • Impact factor of journals and citation count

    • Author position and contribution in multi-author works

    2. Research Impact

    • Tangible outcomes or real-world applications

    • Influence on policy, practice, or further studies

    • Evidence of technology transfer, commercialization, or public benefit

      Healthcare:

      1. Quality of Care

      • Patient safety, accuracy in diagnosis, and appropriateness of treatment

      • Adherence to evidence-based clinical guidelines and standards

      • Patient outcomes and reduction in complications or readmissions

      2. Patient-Centered Approach

      • Respect for patient dignity, values, and preferences

      • Communication, empathy, and shared decision-making

      • Patient satisfaction and feedback mechanisms

      3. Clinical Competence

      • Knowledge and application of medical/scientific principles

      • Technical skills and continuous professional development

      • Multidisciplinary collaboration in care delivery

      4. Innovation and Improvement

      • Implementation of new technologies, procedures, or care models

      • Initiatives to improve efficiency, safety, or effectiveness

      • Evidence of quality improvement (QI) or process optimization projects

        Teaching:

        1. Subject Knowledge and Expertise

        • Mastery of the subject matter

        • Ability to explain complex concepts clearly

        • Integration of current research and developments into teaching

        2. Teaching Effectiveness

        • Use of engaging and inclusive teaching methods

        • Clear communication and presentation skills

        • Ability to stimulate critical thinking and student participation

        3. Curriculum Design and Planning

        • Development of well-structured lesson plans and syllabi

        • Alignment with academic standards and learning objectives

        • Innovation in course design, including interdisciplinary approaches

        4. Assessment and Feedback

        • Fair, transparent, and diverse assessment methods

        • Timely and constructive feedback to students

        • Use of assessments to support and improve learning

        5. Student Engagement and Support

        • Encouragement of student questions, discussions, and exploration

        • Accessibility to students outside class (e.g., office hours, mentoring)

        • Sensitivity to students’ diverse learning needs and backgrounds

Authenticity of ISSN Awards 

1. Originality of Work

All submissions must represent original research conducted by the nominee. Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or misrepresentation of data and findings will lead to immediate disqualification.

2. Verification and Due Diligence

The award committee reserves the right to verify the authenticity of the research work, publications, and claims made by nominees through independent checks and third-party validations.

3. Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

Nominees and panel members must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to ensure transparency and impartiality throughout the selection process.

4. Accurate Representation of Contributions

Nominees should accurately represent their individual contributions, especially in collaborative or multi-author research, to avoid misattribution.