Entry is a modern scholarly paper on any aspect of medieval studies. Entries must be typed, in modern essay format, with bibliography, notes, etc., as needed. Works in medieval writing style and works of fiction should be entered in Prose and Playwriting. Historical "summary" research (Ex. a synopsis of the Battle of Agincourt, a biography of Charlemagne) will be accepted, but best scores will be given to original thesis or synthesis papers whose findings apply directly to medieval re-creation (Ex. use of tactical maneuvers in the Battle of Agincourt; the effects of Charlemagne's political influence on calligraphic style). NOTE: Unlike other categories, which encourage the production of artifacts suitable to medieval standards, Research Papers seeks entries within a mundane context. Criteria areas have thus been modified accordingly.

FORMAT (0-4 points) The paper's physical presentation. Give 1 point for successful achievement of each of the following:

• 3 ring or plastic binder. (Judges discretion if another type of binding is used that allows easy access without damage to paper. No points for stapled, as this is not easily accessible. Extra consideration may be given for a medieval/Renaissance book-like appearance, depending on legibility and neatness.
• Paper should follow a standard mundane format. Look for inclusion and placement of title, contents, bibliography, foot- or endnotes, appendices, graphics, and content subsections, as appropriate.
• Do footnotes, endnotes, bibliographical entries, etc. follow a consistent and appropriate standard style?
• Are illustrations, photocopies, graphs, tables, etc. neat and well reproduced? Is their placement and meaning clear?

METHODS (0-4 points) Source use, primary research, choice of research methods, etc. DO NOT judge any conclusions drawn; consider only the validity of the research on which the conclusions are based

• Thoroughness of background investigation: did researcher pursue available avenues of information, within reason? Did he use primary sources if readily available? Well documented secondary and tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable. A one- or two- source paper must provide valid reasons why only one or two sources were used.
• Internal validity: are sources or research methods used correctly? Are facts presented accurately? Are quotes and other materials taken in proper context? Be careful of out of context or modern interpretations. The modern concept of "political correctness" is not historically accurate.
• External validity: Has the author checked and bibliographically cited recent research in the topic, if applicable?
• Extent of methods: Use of research methods other than library research, such as re-creative experimentation (Ex. following period recipes to verify techniques), "live" examination of period artifacts (Ex. using a microscope to identify fibers from a period piece of needlework), mathematical content analysis (Ex. to determine relative frequencies of layout styles in different schools of illumination), etc. Some topics do not lend themselves to the scientific method or recreation, or the author may have been prevented from such recreation. If the author explains such limitations in an appendix, he should be given credit for the point.

COMPLEXITY (1-5 points)Rank approach 0-3 as noted, then add points for additional factors, listed as appropriate. (Maximum of 5 points.) NOTE: Judge what the researcher attempts, NOT whether he succeeds.

• 0:Regurgitation approach: Researcher recites facts drawn mostly from one source, with little or no attempt to reorganize or analyze material.
• 1:Summary approach: Researcher collects facts from a number of sources and organizes them in some manner (chronologically, by category, etc.), object is to gather and present known ideas in a useful way, but not to develop new ideas.
• 2:Synthesis approach: Researcher collects data from a number of sources, correlates it, and attempts to draw logical conclusions from the resulting relationships.
• 3:Thesis approach: Researcher proposes a question or opinion, collects and analyzes data, draws a conclusion, and presents that conclusion with relevant data to support it. Object is to present and prove an original idea.

• supporting materials (illustrations, artifacts, charts, graphs, etc.)
• exceptionally complex methods (re-creative experimentation, etc.)
• Annotate bibliography

WORKMANSHIP (1-5 points) Writing style, logic, etc. Rank the entry on a scale of 1-5 based on the following:

• grammar, punctuation, spelling
• organization
• clarity
• development of theme, subject, or thesis

TOPIC (1-6 points) Subject matter or research question, and its appropriateness to SCA context. Do not consider presentation. Rank the entry on a scale of 1-6 based on the following:

• Authenticity. Does topic relate directly to the period 600-1600 C.E., and to an area having at least trade routes with Western Europe at the time. (Topics dealing with earlier periods are acceptable if researcher demonstrates the direct impact of the topic on the SCA period.)
• Is the topic well defined?
• Originality. Does topic cover new ground? Does it suggest a new view or approach?
• Applicability. Is research of potential use to other SCA members studying the subject?

QUALITY (1-6 points)

Evaluate the work as a whole. NOTE: This category is subjective; however, the judge should take into account prior category scores, aesthetic appeal, presentation, intuitive response, and other such items not previously addressed.

FORMAT (0-4 points) The paper's physical presentation. Give 1 point for successful achievement of each of the following:

• 3 ring or plastic binder. (Judges discretion if another type of binding is used that allows easy access without damage to paper. No points for stapled, as this is not easily accessible. Extra consideration may be given for a medieval/Renaissance book-like appearance, depending on legibility and neatness.
• Paper should follow a standard mundane format. Look for inclusion and placement of title, contents, bibliography, foot- or endnotes, appendices, graphics, and content subsections, as appropriate.
• Do footnotes, endnotes, bibliographical entries, etc. follow a consistent and appropriate standard style?
• Are illustrations, photocopies, graphs, tables, etc. neat and well reproduced? Is their placement and meaning clear?

METHODS (0-4 points) Source use, primary research, choice of research methods, etc. DO NOT judge any conclusions drawn; consider only the validity of the research on which the conclusions are based

• Thoroughness of background investigation: did researcher pursue available avenues of information, within reason? Did he use primary sources if readily available? Well documented secondary and tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable. A one- or two- source paper must provide valid reasons why only one or two sources were used.
• Internal validity: are sources or research methods used correctly? Are facts presented accurately? Are quotes and other materials taken in proper context? Be careful of out of context or modern interpretations. The modern concept of "political correctness" is not historically accurate.
• External validity: Has the author checked and bibliographically cited recent research in the topic, if applicable?
• Extent of methods: Use of research methods other than library research, such as re-creative experimentation (Ex. following period recipes to verify techniques), "live" examination of period artifacts (Ex. using a microscope to identify fibers from a period piece of needlework), mathematical content analysis (Ex. to determine relative frequencies of layout styles in different schools of illumination), etc. Some topics do not lend themselves to the scientific method or recreation, or the author may have been prevented from such recreation. If the author explains such limitations in an appendix, he should be given credit for the point.

COMPLEXITY (1-5 points) Rank approach 0-3 as noted, then add points for additional factors, listed as appropriate. (Maximum of 5 points.) NOTE: Judge what the researcher attempts, NOT whether he succeeds.

• 0:Regurgitation approach: Researcher recites facts drawn mostly from one source, with little or no attempt to reorganize or analyze material.
• 1:Summary approach: Researcher collects facts from a number of sources and organizes them in some manner (chronologically, by category, etc.), object is to gather and present known ideas in a useful way, but not to develop new ideas.
• 2:Synthesis approach: Researcher collects data from a number of sources, correlates it, and attempts to draw logical conclusions from the resulting relationships.
• 3:Thesis approach: Researcher proposes a question or opinion, collects and analyzes data, draws a conclusion, and presents that conclusion with relevant data to support it. Object is to present and prove an original idea.

• supporting materials (illustrations, artifacts, charts, graphs, etc.)
• exceptionally complex methods (re-creative experimentation, etc.)
• annotate bibliography

WORKMANSHIP (1-5 points) Writing style, logic, etc. Rank the entry on a scale of 1-5 based on the following:

• grammar, punctuation, spelling
• organization
• clarity
• development of theme, subject, or thesis

TOPIC (1-4 points) Subject matter or research question, and its appropriateness to SCA context. Do not consider presentation. Rank the entry on a scale of 1-4 based on the following:

• Authenticity. Does topic relate directly to the period 600-1600 C.E., and to an area having at least trade routes with Western Europe at the time. (Topics dealing with earlier periods are acceptable if researcher demonstrates the direct impact of the topic on the SCA period.)
• Is the topic well defined?
• Originality. Does topic cover new ground? Does it suggest a new view or approach?
• Applicability. Is research of potential use to other SCA members studying the subject?

QUALITY (1-8 points)

Evaluate the work as a whole. NOTE: This category is subjective; however, the judge should take into account prior category scores, aesthetic appeal, presentation, intuitive response, and other such items not previously addressed.

FORMAT (0-4 points) The paper's physical presentation. Give 1 point for successful achievement of each of the following

• 3 ring or plastic binder. (Judges discretion if another type of binding is used that allows easy access without damage to paper. No points for stapled, as this is not easily accessible. Extra consideration may be given for a medieval/Renaissance book-like appearance, depending on legibility and neatness.
• Paper should follow a standard mundane format. Look for inclusion and placement of title, contents, bibliography, foot- or endnotes, appendices, graphics, and content subsections, as appropriate.
• Do footnotes, endnotes, bibliographical entries, etc. follow a consistent and appropriate standard style?
• Are illustrations, photocopies, graphs, tables, etc. neat and well reproduced? Is their placement and meaning clear?

METHODS (0-4 points) Source use, primary research, choice of research methods, etc. DO NOT judge any conclusions drawn; consider only the validity of the research on which the conclusions are based.

• Thoroughness of background investigation: did researcher pursue available avenues of information, within reason? Did he use primary sources if readily available? Well documented secondary and tertiary sources are perfectly acceptable. A one- or two- source paper must provide valid reasons why only one or two sources were used.
• Internal validity: are sources or research methods used correctly? Are facts presented accurately? Are quotes and other materials taken in proper context? Be careful of out of context or modern interpretations. The modern concept of "political correctness" is not historically accurate.
• External validity: Has the author checked and bibliographically cited recent research in the topic, if applicable?
• Extent of methods: Use of research methods other than library research, such as re-creative experimentation (Ex. following period recipes to verify techniques), "live" examination of period artifacts (Ex. using a microscope to identify fibers from a period piece of needlework), mathematical content analysis (Ex. to determine relative frequencies of layout styles in different schools of illumination), etc. Some topics do not lend themselves to the scientific method or recreation, or the author may have been prevented from such recreation. If the author explains such limitations in an appendix, he should be given credit for the point.

COMPLEXITY (0-6 points) Rank approach 0-3 as noted, then add points for additional factors, listed as appropriate. NOTE: Judge what the researcher attempts, NOT whether he succeeds.

• 0:Regurgitation approach: Researcher recites facts drawn mostly from one source, with little or no attempt to reorganize or analyze material.
• 1:Summary approach: Researcher collects facts from a number of sources and organizes them in some manner (chronologically, by category, etc.), object is to gather and present known ideas in a useful way, but not to develop new ideas.
• 2:Synthesis approach: Researcher collects data from a number of sources, correlates it, and attempts to draw logical conclusions from the resulting relationships.
• 3:Thesis approach: Researcher proposes a question or opinion, collects and analyzes data, draws a conclusion, and presents that conclusion with relevant data to support it. Object is to present and prove an original idea.

• supporting materials (illustrations, artifacts, charts, graphs, etc.)
• exceptionally complex methods (re-creative experimentation, etc.)
• Annotate bibliography

WORKMANSHIP (0-6 points) ) Writing style, logic, etc. Rank the entry on a scale of 0-6 based on the following:

• grammar, punctuation, spelling
• organization
• clarity
• development of theme, subject, or thesis

TOPIC (0-4 points) Subject matter or research question, and its appropriateness to SCA context. Do not consider presentation. Rank the entry on a scale of 0-4 based on the following:

• Authenticity. Does topic relate directly to the period 600-1600 C.E., and to an area having at least trade routes with Western Europe at the time. (Topics dealing with earlier periods are acceptable if researcher demonstrates the direct impact of the topic on the SCA period.)
• Is the topic well defined?
• Originality. Does topic cover new ground? Does it suggest a new view or approach?
• Applicability. Is research of potential use to other SCA members studying the subject?

QUALITY (1-6 points)

Evaluate the work as a whole. NOTE: This category is subjective; however, the judge should take into account prior category scores, aesthetic appeal, presentation, intuitive response, and other such items not previously addressed. .