Working document

1.1 What the competition is for

“Complex Topics, Clear Explanations” is a WAAS initiative that encourages simple, clear and scientifically accurate explanations of difficult topics in informatics, computer science and information and communication technologies. Teachers, scientists and practising specialists turn their knowledge into teaching material. Experts then assess its quality and its usefulness to learners.

The project is meant to produce two results that work together: a competition that encourages authors, and an open digital knowledge platform that keeps selected materials available for a long time. Success should be measured not only by who wins, but by whether lasting, high-quality resources are created and used.

1.2 What need it addresses

The source document names the main need as the limited number of clear, systematic and practical explanations in Azerbaijani of some modern IT topics. Some existing materials may be too theoretical, short of examples, or behind the technology. A survey before the competition should pin these needs down topic by topic.

The project is meant to make learning easier for school pupils and students, to widen what teachers can use, and to increase the exchange of knowledge among schools, universities and industry. Bringing Azerbaijani specialists in Azerbaijan and abroad onto one platform fits the scientific and educational work of WAAS.

1.3 The main quality principle

A simple explanation must not weaken scientific accuracy. The author should define terms, keep a logical order, give fitting examples and take account of what the audience already knows. A heavy academic style, a pile of jargon and expensive visuals should not count as advantages by themselves.

The informal “grandmother test” in the source is offered as one way to check clarity: can an educated non-specialist follow the main idea? It does not replace a formal criterion. Work written for master’s students or specialists should still be judged at the level of the named audience.

1.4 Name and how the project is presented

In the source document the project is called “Selected lectures” and the motto is “Difficult topics — simple explanations.” The English name used in this working text is “Complex Topics, Clear Explanations.” “Share your knowledge, leave a mark” and “Share Your Knowledge, Leave Your Mark” may be used as motivational lines.

The final Azerbaijani and English names of the competition, the name of the platform and the wording of the “DAAB Selected Lecture” quality status still need separate confirmation. The call, the application form, the regulation and any sponsor materials should use the same names.

2.1 Who may take part

The first model is open to university and school teachers, scientists and researchers, programmers, engineers, data-science and cybersecurity specialists, staff of IT companies, independent experts, master’s students, doctoral students and other students. Specialists in science and technology in the Azerbaijani diaspora are also expected to take part.

Age, post and academic title should not be the main selection criteria. Judging should rest on the quality of the work. For the first year the intended audience is Azerbaijan and the diaspora. Exact rules on citizenship, residence and a minimum age have not yet been decided.

2.2 Individual and team entries

Alongside individual entries, teams of two or three are proposed. Pairings such as a scientist with a teacher, a teacher with a programmer, a professor with a doctoral student, or an engineer with a designer can combine scientific content with teaching and visual skill.

Team size is a recommendation in the source, not yet a hard cap. Whether it becomes a strict limit, how many works one author may submit, who represents a team, and how a material prize would be shared if one is later provided, should be settled before the call. Instead of separate participant categories, the first year could be a single competition plus a separate “Best young author” nomination.

2.3 Who the materials are for

The author must name a concrete target audience in the application. The source envisages these groups:

• School pupils of about 14–18 and bachelor students.
• Master’s students, doctoral students and specialists who want to deepen a topic.
• People entering IT and people changing field.
• School and university teachers.

The level, terms, examples and pace of the explanation should fit the chosen audience. Naming prior knowledge and learning outcomes is an editorial recommendation: the reader should know what they need before they start, and what they should be able to explain or apply at the end.

3.1 Priority topics

Priority goes to topics that are hard to learn, of high practical or scientific importance, and poorly explained in Azerbaijani. A topic may also be justified if current resources are too theoretical, if students and teachers keep reporting difficulty, or if the technology is new and promising.

Overly general introductions such as “What is Python?” and “How does Excel work?” are not the main priority. A selected work should not merely repeat existing material; it should give a clear answer to a concrete learning difficulty. Popularity should be judged together with teaching value.

3.2 Topic directions

The directions in the source have been grouped only to make reading easier. The grouping does not add a new eligibility limit.

• Programming and theoretical foundations: programming, algorithms, data structures, theoretical computer science, computational mathematics and software engineering.
• Artificial intelligence and data: AI, machine learning, generative AI, data science and big data.
• Systems and infrastructure: computer networks, operating systems, databases, cloud technologies and computer architecture.
• Security and interaction: cybersecurity and human–computer interaction.
• Emerging technologies: quantum computing, robotics, the Internet of Things, blockchain and other new IT technologies.

A scientific committee may prepare priority directions and example topics each year. A participant may choose from the published list or propose a justified new topic.

3.3 Open survey and topic approval

An open survey before the competition is proposed, asking: “In informatics and ICT, which topic do you find hardest to understand?” It may be shared with school pupils, students, teachers, universities, IT companies, specialists and WAAS members.

Results should be merged where answers overlap, reviewed scientifically and turned into a priority list. The source gives “50 IT topics most in need of explanation” as an example; 50 is not a required count.

As an editorial recommendation, a topic proposal may ask for a title, audience, the concrete difficulty, the gap in existing resources and the expected learning outcome. Whether a topic must be approved in advance, and the reply time, still need to be set.

4.1 Formats and volume

For the first year three main formats are proposed, plus a teaching pack that combines them. The volumes below are recommendations in the source, not approved minimums or maximums.

A high-quality work submitted in one format may later be turned, with the author, into an article–slides–video pack by WAAS. The first invitation should not give the impression that every format must be submitted at once.

4.2 Logical structure of the material

The author may use the following sequence, adapted to the topic:

1. Introduce the topic and the key ideas.
2. State the problem being solved and why it matters.
3. Explain the core idea and how it works.
4. Give a simple, staged example.
5. Connect it to practice and to a real situation.
6. Cover the most common mistakes and misunderstandings.
7. State the main conclusions and, where useful, further directions.
8. Point to reliable sources for further study.

Covering a topic fully does not mean listing every sub-field. It means answering the main questions within the stated aim and audience. Diagrams, charts and code should complete the logic of the explanation.

4.3 Language and scientific accuracy

Azerbaijani is the main language proposed for the first stage. Accepted Azerbaijani terms should be preferred. Where needed, the international term should appear in English in brackets at first use. Heavy academic and bureaucratic wording should be avoided.

The author is responsible for the accuracy of facts, technical explanations and examples. Personal opinion should be separated from scientific fact. Alternative approaches should be shown fairly, and outdated technology or data should be marked as historical.

Important scientific, technical and statistical points need sources. Preference goes to scholarly articles, academic books, standards, university resources, official technical documents and materials from trusted organisations. References should follow one format.

4.4 Completing the technical rules

The source does not fix file extensions, a maximum file size, video resolution, codec, subtitle rules, a coding environment or the upload method. Those details should be confirmed in a separate technical note. Authors need to know the required equipment and software in advance.

Editorial recommendation: prepare a checklist for clear speech and writing, readable slides, working code samples and accessibility. The cost of visual production should not be confused with the quality of the content.

5.1 Application information

The source envisages an application form asking for the author’s name, country and city, workplace and role, email and a short biography. For the work it may ask for a title, category, target audience, difficulty, format, a short summary and the main sources.

An authorship and rights statement and information on the use of artificial intelligence are added to the application. Fields for team members, a main contact and the files submitted are an editorial recommendation. Which fields are required and which are optional still needs confirmation.

5.2 Stages a participant would go through

A participant first reads the rules, chooses a topic and audience, registers and prepares the material. They then submit the work and the statements. The work passes a technical check and expert review. Selected authors are invited to a final presentation. A work chosen for publication goes onto the platform only after any required editing and a separate publication agreement.

The source proposes two online seminars as support: “How to prepare a good lecture” and “How to explain a complex topic simply.” Rules, sample materials and a frequently-asked-questions page can also make preparation easier.

5.3 Information and privacy

A participant’s personal data should be used to organise the competition. Passing contact details to sponsors or other third parties is treated in the source as a matter that needs separate consent. A networking meeting with a sponsor does not mean personal data are shared automatically.

Rules on acknowledging receipt, fixing gaps, late applications, technical faults and withdrawing a work are not spelled out in the source. They belong on the organiser’s decision list.

6.1 The 100-point scoring system

The single table below combines the scoring models that were repeated in the source. Clarity and simplicity of the explanation carry the highest weight. Scientific accuracy is scored separately. A serious factual error cannot be hidden by a high total score.

Editorial recommendation: write short descriptions of a weak, adequate and strong mark on each line so different reviewers use the same scale. Completeness of the topic can be checked inside structure and teaching value. If a separate score for completeness is later confirmed, the total must be brought back to 100.

6.2 Expert review and the final

The first stage checks completeness of the papers, format, topic fit, sources, authorship and AI statements, and plagiarism risk. Eligible works then go to at least two experts.

In the dual-review model a subject expert looks at scientific and technical correctness, and a teaching or communication expert looks at clarity and audience fit. Marks should first be given independently and then combined by one published rule.

About 10–15 of the best works may be invited to a final. The final may be in person or online: 10 minutes to present and 5 minutes for questions for each participant.

6.3 Final score and the audience award

The formula proposed in the source is: final score = 70 percent of the first expert score + 30 percent of the final talk and question score. That formula only works if both parts are themselves marked out of 100.

How first-round expert scores are merged, the separate criteria for the final, what happens on a tie, and how sharp disagreements are resolved still need to be set. Until those mechanisms are confirmed, the 70/30 split alone is not a complete judging rule.

An audience vote is proposed only for a separate “Audience choice” award. It should not enter the calculation of 1st, 2nd or 3rd place. The voting method and measures against repeat voting should be announced in advance.

6.4 The jury and conflicts of interest

A jury of five to seven people is proposed. It might include two university scientists, an IT industry representative, an experienced teacher, a specialist in education methods or science communication, a young specialist and, if needed, a student representative.

A juror who is a close family member, direct teacher or colleague of the author, who took part in the work, or who has a personal or financial stake in the result, must declare it and withdraw from judging that work. Other well-founded doubts about impartiality should also be taken into account. When jurors’ names are published, and how a replacement expert is appointed, should be decided in advance.

7.1 Recognition and possible awards

Recognising outstanding authors and sharing their work on the WAAS platform are the main intended incentives. Diplomas, certificates and other non-monetary recognition may be set according to what the organisers can provide.

It is not known whether cash prizes, sponsor gifts or other material incentives will exist. No prize fund has been set aside and no financial support has been confirmed. If such an opportunity arises, the type and terms of awards can be decided separately and announced to participants. Presentation of the competition must not rest on a promise of material prizes.

1st, 2nd and 3rd place, “Best young author”, “Audience choice” and “Best practical explanation” may be considered as recognition categories. “Best video lecture”, “Most innovative presentation” and field-specific nominations are further options. These categories do not by themselves imply a cash prize. For the first year it is recommended to keep their number limited, to set the age limit for “young author”, and to decide in advance whether one work may be recognised in more than one category.

7.2 DAAB Selected Lecture status

Works that do not win an award but still show high quality may also be selected for publication. The source proposes these minima for “DAAB Selected Lecture” status:

• An overall mark of at least 80/100.
• Scientific and technical accuracy of at least 16/20.
• A simple, clear explanation of at least 20/25.
• No significant plagiarism, main sources shown, and compliance with copyright.
• Completion of any corrections required before publication.

A work with a critical scientific flaw should not receive this status, whatever its overall score. Whether the threshold applies to the first-round mark, the final competition score, or a re-assessment after editing is not fully clear in the source and must be confirmed.

7.3 Results and the final event

Winners and selected works may be announced on the WAAS website and communication channels. How much of the individual scores and expert comments is made public should be stated in the rules in advance.

The sample final programme in the source runs: 10:00 opening, 10:15 project presentation, 10:30 final talks, 13:00 break, 14:00 panel “How should we teach IT?”, 15:00 possible partner remarks, 15:30 results, 16:00 awards and 16:30 networking. This is a working example. If fifteen finalists each have 15 minutes, the talks alone take 225 minutes. The final programme must therefore be rebuilt to match the number of finalists.

8.1 Authorship and plagiarism

The participant must declare that the work belongs to them or to the named group of authors, and that third-party text, images, diagrams, code and other materials have been used properly. Citations and usage rights should be checked separately.

The source lists significant plagiarism, false information, presenting another person’s work as one’s own, copyright breach and deliberate distortion of science as grounds for exclusion. Serious breaches of the rules, hate or discriminatory content, illegal content and reckless dangerous technical instructions are on the same list.

If plagiarism is found later, the source envisages withdrawal of an award and of quality status. The procedure for checking, asking the author for an explanation and recording the decision should be set out in the approved rules.

8.2 Use of artificial intelligence

Use of artificial intelligence is not intended as an automatic ground for exclusion. The main principles are transparency, the author’s responsibility and the author’s own intellectual contribution.

Tools may be used to structure ideas, edit language and style, check grammar, translate, help with code samples and prepare visuals. The author must disclose the tool, the purpose and the scale of use, and must check the results. Unchecked generated material should not be treated as meeting originality or quality requirements.

8.3 Publication and use rights

In the model proposed by the source, copyright stays with the author. Applying means consent for the work to be reviewed for the competition. Publication needs a separate agreement. Non-exclusive publication and distribution rights for WAAS are proposed.

The agreement may cover online distribution, editing, translation, technical format changes and use in educational campaigns. Substantial edits and translations should be agreed with the author. Commercial reuse by third parties, the right to adapt the work and citation rules should be set in the chosen licence.

This section organises the rights model from the source; it is not approved contract wording. Being able to view a resource openly is not the same as a licence to reuse it freely.

8.4 Appeals and changes to the rules

In the source an appeal is limited to procedure. A juror’s academic or professional mark itself is not a ground of appeal. The proposed window is five working days after results are announced. Review should be by a separately appointed commission.

On matters not covered by the regulation, a decision by the competent WAAS body is envisaged, as are calendar and technical changes for good cause and timely notice to participants. Powers, decision times and the channel for requests should be stated in the final rules.

9.1 Division of responsibility

The table below combines the roles in the source. Named officers and decision powers must be appointed by WAAS.

9.2 The proposed first cycle

The source document proposes the first half of 2027 for the first full competition. These dates are not an approved calendar. The competition stage is envisaged as about six months, with about three further months for editing and publication.

The financial and technical feasibility of a final should be assessed before the call. An online final for participants in Azerbaijan and abroad fits the model in the source. If the calendar changes, the website announcement, the form and participant notices should be updated together.

9.3 Document pack before the call

The source envisages preparing the following: a regulation, participation rules, topic categories, an application form, authorship and AI statements, a publication agreement, an expert scoring form, a jury briefing, a conflict-of-interest declaration, a communication plan, a calendar and an assessment of resource needs. A sponsor proposal and a budget may be prepared separately only if a real opportunity arises.

A formal invitation to universities and companies, a short social-media announcement and a sponsor approach letter should be prepared as separate communication documents. The forms in this booklet are working samples. Their presence does not mean every delivery document has been approved.

10.1 Structure of the platform

A separate section for selected materials is envisaged on the WAAS website. Search and filters by category, audience, difficulty, format, language and year should help a user find a suitable resource.

Each material page may show a title, the author and a short biography, topic category, level, audience, keywords and reading or viewing time. The page should give access to the article, PDF, video, slides, exercises, code samples, sources and related materials. Links such as “Watch”, “Read”, “Learn”, “Try” and “Go deeper” appear in the source as a presentation idea.

10.2 Editing and publication

Selected materials should pass scientific and language editing, design and technical adaptation and, where needed, video editing. The author’s main scientific position must not be distorted, and important changes should be agreed.

Azerbaijani is proposed as the main language of publication. Translating the best materials into English and Russian, and later into other languages, is a development path that depends on money and editorial capacity. Translation and professional video production for every work should not be presented now as a guarantee.

10.3 Link to the call and the flyer

The flyer should act as a short invitation; the detailed terms should open on the competition page. The current flyer file is not attached to this document, so the mapping below is based on headings from earlier correspondence. It has not been checked against the actual design.

The flyer must not promise a material prize or financial support. If such an opportunity is later confirmed, the information can be added separately. A deadline and an application link should also appear only after confirmation. “Share your knowledge, leave a mark” may be used as a short call. The line “Selected works will become an open teaching resource” explains the lasting result of the project; the legal terms of use belong in a separate publication rule.

10.4 Distribution channels

The call may be shared through university and school networks, student unions, IT companies, professional communities, diaspora organisations, LinkedIn, Facebook and YouTube. The campaign should not stop at the first announcement. It should also cover the topic survey, preparation seminars, finalists, winners and published materials.

The source names PR channels but does not fully set a weekly content calendar or named owners per channel. Those belong in the communication plan.

11.1 Value for a sponsor

Sponsor support would be directed at creating lasting teaching resources in Azerbaijani. A proposal should stress a contribution to education, corporate social responsibility, recognition as an employer, contact with talent only with consent, university cooperation and measurable results.

Potential partners may include IT, telecommunications, banking and financial-technology companies, cloud and data-centre providers, software and cybersecurity firms, technology manufacturers, universities, education bodies, foundations, public and non-public organisations, diaspora businesses and individuals.

11.2 Possible forms of support

Sponsors, sponsorship packages and financial commitments have not been decided. Seeking support is a possible line of cooperation; there is no assurance that it will be obtained. For that reason this stage does not set financial thresholds, sponsor tiers or benefits promised in advance.

If interested parties are found, support can be discussed against the project’s needs and their capacity. Besides money, expert time, editing, technical services, equipment, a venue and information support may also be useful.

Recognition such as naming a partner on the website, a note of thanks and reports on results can be agreed separately if cooperation arises. The type and duration of support, the parties’ duties and the terms of scientific independence should be set in that agreement. A sponsor’s name must not replace the official name of the competition or overshadow the teaching content.

11.3 Service and nomination partnerships

A technology partner may help with servers, cloud, software, a video platform, security services, development tools and training licences. An education partner may provide experts, participants and a venue. A media partner may cover the call, the final and the results.

If an interested party appears, support for a particular topic direction or nomination may be discussed. Whether such support will exist, and in what form, has not been decided. If cooperation arises, its purpose, terms of use and nomination criteria should be agreed separately, and the sponsor must not intervene in judging.

11.4 Scientific independence

A sponsor does not pick the winner, does not intervene in expert scores, does not demand preference in selecting participants and does not change the judging criteria on its own. Scientific and competition decisions must stay with the relevant independent WAAS bodies.

A masterclass by a sponsor expert, or a networking meeting with talent, may be organised separately from judging. Participants’ personal data must not be shared automatically. Sponsor visibility may be provided through a neutral acknowledgement on the website, social media, the final programme, the annual report and suitable videos.

11.5 Sequence of work with sponsors

The source proposes a list of 50–100 potential organisations, grouped as high, medium and reserve priorities. Contact need not be limited to the head of the organisation. People responsible for social responsibility, marketing, communication, human resources, university relations and education programmes may also be considered.

A first approach needs only a one- or two-page brief and an offer of a 20–30 minute meeting. The brief should explain the need, a possible solution, the expected effect and the room for cooperation. If interest appears, the possible form of support, visibility, duties and independence terms can be discussed separately.

In the first stage the scale of the project should be built only on existing organisational capacity. The number of sponsors and partners, the continuity of support and a future cooperation model are not conditions fixed in advance. If extra support appears, what concrete contribution it would make can be assessed separately.

11.6 Sample short sponsor pitch

WAAS encourages scientists, teachers and industry specialists to turn difficult informatics and ICT topics into clear teaching materials. The best works selected in the competition are intended for an open digital platform. We invite partners to support the creation of Azerbaijani-language knowledge resources that students and teachers can use for a long time.

12.1 Present position

The competition’s budget, sources of funding and prospects of material support have not yet been decided. It is also not known whether any money will be allocated. This document therefore does not set any amount, prize fund, sponsor income or spending commitment.

A workable form of delivery should be judged against the people, time and technical resources WAAS already has. Volunteer expert time, use of existing digital capacity and online activity may be considered; whether those are actually available should also be checked first.

12.2 Resource needs to be assessed

Before a delivery decision, it should be clear what resources are needed for registration and technical coordination, expert review, scientific and language editing, placing materials on the site and keeping the platform running. Whether each task can be done by the present team, or needs extra help, should be assessed separately.

Video production, translation, a wide communication campaign, an in-person final, travel and material awards are activities that can be considered only if capacity appears. They should not be presented as parts of the competition that have already been secured.

At this stage the aim is not to write a detailed cost estimate, but to make clear which tasks can be carried out and where resources are missing. If financial support later becomes possible, a budget fitted to those activities can then be prepared and submitted for approval.

12.3 Approach if support appears

Potential support may take the form of money, services, equipment, a venue or volunteer professional time. None of these is treated now as a secured source. Offers of cooperation should be judged against the project’s real needs.

If support is obtained, what work it will fund, the terms of use, the responsible parties and the reporting rule should be agreed clearly. A contribution of services or equipment should not be treated as cash. It should be counted only for the need it actually meets.

If financial support is not obtained, it should be asked whether a simpler competition can still be run with existing resources. If that is not possible either, scale and timing can be reconsidered. The main principle is not to promise money or material incentives that cannot be delivered.

13.1 Targets for the first year

The figures below are targets in the source. They are not actual results and not a guarantee to a sponsor.

“User”, “view” and “interaction” are different indicators. The measurement period, the data source and how repeats are counted should be set in advance. User comments and teachers’ use of the materials may also be watched to judge teaching effect.

13.2 Reporting and sponsor results

A final report may cover applications, countries, participating organisations, topic categories, finalists and winners, published materials, views and downloads, media coverage, user comments and sponsor visibility. If sponsor support exists, what it was spent on and what result it produced should be shown clearly.

One part of the source says statistics would be presented from the second year; another says after the project. The editorial recommendation is to start collecting data from day one, issue a first report at the end of the first cycle, and track use after publication separately.

13.3 Continuity and expansion

The proposal is to start in the first year with informatics and ICT only, and to expand later to engineering, technology and other sciences if capacity allows. 2028 and 2029 in the source are example stages, not approved commitments.

A multilingual library under a name such as “DAAB Open Lectures” or “DAAB Open Knowledge”, annual collections, university and company partnerships, and an annual best-lecture award are development options. If about 10 materials are kept each year, about 50 would exist after five years. A target of 50–100, or of hundreds of materials, would need a faster rate of production.

13.4 International approaches named in the source

The source document names Three Minute Thesis, ACM education initiatives and MIT OpenCourseWare as comparison examples. The ideas proposed to take from them are clear scientific communication, teaching value, usefulness in other institutions and keeping resources openly available for a long time.

The source uses both SIGCSE and SIGHPC for ACM but gives no concrete citations. IEEE is mentioned as a question in the original brief, but no reasoned example is supplied. These notes have not been independently checked in this edit. Specific claims about foreign models should be sourced before they enter an official presentation, and they should not be made to look like confirmed WAAS partners.

14.1 Main risks

14.2 A manageable starting model

The starting model recommended in the source is a six-month informatics and ICT competition, in Azerbaijani, for participants in Azerbaijan and the diaspora, in article, video and explained-presentation formats, with a jury of five to seven, 10–15 finalists and about 10 selected materials.

Whether this model can be carried out depends on an assessment of existing resources. Budget, sponsor support and material prizes have not been decided and are not treated as guaranteed. Capacity for publication and for keeping the platform running should also be assessed separately, and the scale of delivery should match that capacity.

14.3 Decisions still awaiting confirmation

The following matters should be decided before the call:

• Official names, the names of the platform and quality status, the date the regulation is approved, and the competent body.
• Geography of participation, age rules, team size, number of works, previously published material, and whether there is an entry fee.
• Topic approval, the main language and any exceptions, format limits and a full technical specification.
• How applications and files are received, the deadline, and the procedure for corrections and late entries.
• How expert scores are combined, final criteria, the 70/30 model, ties, and how the quality-status threshold is applied.
• Recognition categories and the young-author age limit; separate terms if a material prize later becomes possible.
• The publication agreement, the licence, handling of personal data, appeals and the procedure if a breach is found later.
• What can be delivered with existing resources and the form of the final; if support appears, its terms and any budget then required.
• Keeping the platform running, editorial responsibility, usage indicators and the reporting period.

Once these matters are settled, the same confirmed information should be copied into the regulation, the participant guide, the flyer, the web page and any sponsor pack.

Author and contact details

Full name

Country and city

Workplace or place of study and role

Email

Short biography

Individual or team entry

Team members and main contact

Information about the submitted work

Title of the work

Topic category

Target audience and difficulty

Format and files or links

Short summary and main sources

Attachments: authorship statement and statement on the use of artificial intelligence.