Complex Topics, Clear Explanations

Purpose

Can you explain a difficult ICT topic clearly and simply?

The English name of this competition and collection is Complex Topics, Clear Explanations. In Azerbaijani it is Çətin mövzu, aydın izah. The final wording of both names, the platform name and any quality badge still need confirmation, so every public text should use the same pair until then.

WAAS wants two results that work together: a competition that encourages authors, and an open digital collection that keeps selected materials available afterwards. Success is not only who wins. It is whether learners and teachers can still use the explanations later.

The need is practical. Clear, systematic Azerbaijani explanations of some modern ICT topics are limited. Existing texts can be too theoretical, short on examples, or out of date. A short public survey before the call should turn that general need into concrete topics.

A simple explanation must not weaken the science. Authors should define terms, keep a logical order, give fitting examples and respect what the named audience already knows. Heavy academic style, a pile of jargon and expensive visuals are not advantages by themselves. An informal “grandmother test” can check whether a non-specialist can follow the main idea. It is not a formal criterion, and work written for masters, doctoral students or specialists should still be judged at that level.

The planned survey question is: “In informatics and ICT, which topic do you find hardest to understand?” Taking the survey will not be required in order to enter. Motivational lines that may appear with the call are “Share your knowledge. Leave a mark.” and “Biliyini paylaş, izin qalsın.”

Working plan. Survey wording, dates and the final official names will be confirmed in the call.

Who?

Teachers, scientists, IT specialists and students

The first-year 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 the Azerbaijani diaspora are also invited. Job title, academic rank and age are not the test. The quality of the explanation is.

The first year is aimed at Azerbaijan and the diaspora. Citizenship, residence and any minimum age are still undecided and will be stated in the official call.

Entries may come from one person or from a recommended team of two or three — for example a teacher with a programmer, a professor with a doctoral student, or an engineer with a designer. Whether two or three is a hard cap, how many works one author may submit, who represents a team and how a prize would be shared are still open. The working preference is one competition plus an optional “best young author” nomination, not a set of separate participant categories.

Work may be written or recorded in Azerbaijani or English. Both languages are accepted. The working document proposes Azerbaijani as the main language of the first stage; accepted Azerbaijani terms should be preferred, with the English term in brackets on first use where needed. Later translation into English or Russian is a development path, not a promise for every work.

Authors must name a target audience. The planned groups are: school students of about 14–18 and bachelor students; master’s students, doctoral students and specialists deepening a topic; people entering IT or changing career; and school or university teachers. Level, terms, examples and pace must match that choice. Stating prior knowledge and learning outcomes is an editorial suggestion, not a confirmed rule. School students are an audience. Whether they may also enter as authors is not settled.

Settled as a working plan: individuals and recommended teams of two or three. Age, residence and school-student authorship belong in the official call.

Topics

Priority goes to topics that are hard to learn, scientifically or practically important, 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 consequential. “What is Python?” and “How does Excel work?” are not the main priority. Popularity alone is not enough; the work should answer a real learning difficulty rather than repeat thousands of introductions.

Directions are grouped only to make reading easier. They do not close the list:

• Programming and theory — 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 — networks, operating systems, databases, cloud 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 fields.

A scientific committee may publish priority directions and example topics. Authors may choose from that list or propose a justified topic of their own. A figure such as “50 most-needed IT topics” is an example, not a required count. Whether a topic must be approved in advance, and how quickly that answer would come, is still to be decided.

Topic list, approval step and survey dates will be announced with the official call.

What is submitted?

One format or a combination that best explains the topic

Submit work that explains one genuinely difficult ICT topic. Accepted formats include teaching articles, video lectures, slide presentations, teaching packs, educational cartoons, animations, comics, infographics and interactive learning materials. You may use one format or combine several, choosing the approach that best explains the topic to the intended audience. The ranges below are recommendations from the working document. They are not confirmed minimums or maximums.

A teaching pack may combine text, slides, video, cartoon, animation, comic, infographic, code, exercises and interactive examples. Its volume must be agreed separately. Do not read this as a requirement to submit every format at once. A strong single-format work may later be turned into a pack with the author.

A useful structure, adapted to the topic: introduce the topic and key ideas; state the problem and why it matters; explain the core idea and how it works; give a simple, staged example; connect it to real use; name common mistakes; draw conclusions; and point to reliable further reading. Covering a topic fully means answering the main questions for the named audience, not listing every subfield. Diagrams, visuals and code should support the explanation.

Authors are responsible for facts, technical claims and examples. Personal opinion should be separated from scientific fact. Important scientific, technical and statistical points need sources — preferably papers, academic books, standards, university resources, official technical documents and materials from trusted organisations. File types, maximum size, video resolution, captions and how to upload are not yet fixed; they will appear in a separate technical note.

Recommended ranges and the full format list are not published rules until the official call.

Main criterion

A simple, clear and scientifically accurate explanation of a hard topic

Clarity without accuracy fails. Accuracy without clarity also fails. A serious factual error cannot be hidden by a high total score. Heavy jargon is not an advantage.

The same core principles apply to every format: scientific accuracy, clarity, logical structure, audience suitability and educational value. Visual appeal should support understanding, not merely decorate the work.

The proposed working score sheet is out of 100. Short descriptions of a weak, adequate and strong mark on each line still need to be written so different reviewers use the same scale.

This table is the proposed working model, not a published rulebook.

How entries will be judged

The planned path is a technical check, expert review, a shortlist, a final talk and a separate audience award. None of this is a locked regulation.

• Technical check first. Completeness, format, topic fit, sources, authorship and AI statements, and plagiarism risk are checked before scoring begins.
• At least two experts. A dual view is planned: a subject expert on scientific and technical correctness, and a teaching or communication expert on clarity and audience fit. Marks should be given independently first, then combined by a stated rule.
• Shortlist. About 10–15 works may be invited to a final. Each finalist would have 10 minutes to present and 5 minutes for questions, in person or online. The prepared material should still count for more than stage presence.
• Combining scores. A suggested formula is 70 percent expert score plus 30 percent final talk, but only if both parts are themselves marked out of 100. How first-round scores are merged, what the final is marked on, ties and large disagreements still need rules. Until those exist, 70/30 is not a complete judging method.
• Audience award. An audience vote, if used, should only decide a separate “audience choice” recognition. It should not pick 1st, 2nd or 3rd place. The voting method and anti-repeat measures should be announced in advance.
• Jury. A panel of five to seven people is proposed, which might include two university scientists, an industry representative, an experienced teacher, a specialist in education methods or science communication, a young specialist and, if needed, a student representative. A jury member who is a close relative, direct teacher or colleague of an author, who took part in the work, or who has a personal or financial interest must declare it and withdraw from that entry.

Jury names, exact weights and whether a final talk is held will be confirmed in the official call.

Outcome

Selected works shared on the WAAS platform

The lasting result is publication, with the author’s name, in the WAAS Complex Topics, Clear Explanations collection. Selected works may pass scientific and language editing, design and technical adaptation before they appear. The author’s scientific position must not be distorted; substantial changes would be agreed first.

The best works will also be awarded. Prize amounts and extra nominations will be announced in the official call. Do not treat any euro figure from internal drafts as a confirmed prize. Extra nominations such as best video lecture, most innovative presentation or best young author are options; the working advice is to keep the first-year list short.

A work that is not in the top three may still be selected if it meets a quality floor. A proposed name for that recognition is “DAAB Selected Lecture”; the official wording still needs confirmation. Suggested minimums in the working document are 80/100 overall, at least 16/20 for science and 20/25 for clarity, no serious plagiarism, sources shown, rights respected, and required edits completed. A critical scientific flaw should block the status regardless of the total. Which score those floors apply to — first review, final total or post-edit review — is not yet settled.

Prize amounts, nomination list and quality-badge name belong in the official call.

How to apply

The planned path for a participant is: read the rules; choose a topic and audience; register; prepare the work; submit the files and statements; pass a technical check and expert review; if invited, give a final talk; and, if selected for publication, complete edits and a separate publication agreement before the work goes on the platform.

Two online seminars are planned as support: “How to prepare a good lecture” and “How to explain a complex topic simply.” Sample materials and a frequently-asked-questions page may follow. Personal data should be used only to run the competition. Passing contact details to sponsors or other third parties would need separate consent.

There is not yet an online form. Until the official call opens one, write to info@daab-waas.com with the subject line WAAS Complex Topics, Clear Explanations.

Please include what a later form is expected to ask:

• name, country and city, workplace or role, email and a short biography;
• individual entry or a team of two or three, with every author named and a main contact;
• Azerbaijani or English;
• title, topic direction, target audience and level;
• format and the files or a stable link;
• a short summary and main sources;
• authorship and AI statements — whether AI was not used, used in a limited way, or used substantially, and for what.

An expression of interest can come before the finished file. A finished entry still needs the work itself. Rules for late submissions, technical faults and withdrawing an entry are not written yet.

Mailto is a temporary channel, not the final application system. Which fields will be required is still to be confirmed.

Publication, ethics and rights

You keep the copyright in your work. Sending it for this competition lets WAAS read and assess it. That is not a transfer of ownership and not a publication licence. If a work is selected, a separate agreement would follow.

The intended publication terms are:

• authors keep copyright;
• WAAS receives a non-exclusive right to host the work on daab-waas.com, name the authors and share it for education;
• WAAS may fix language, layout and technical format so the piece can be published;
• a translation, a cut that changes the meaning, or any other substantial edit would be agreed with the authors first;
• authors confirm they have the rights to every image, clip, diagram and code sample they include;
• being able to view a resource on the platform is not the same as a licence to reuse it freely. Reuse, commercial use and how to cite the work would be set in the chosen licence.

Authors must confirm that the work is theirs or their team’s, and that third-party text, images, diagrams and code are used properly. Significant plagiarism, false information, presenting another person’s work as one’s own, copyright breach, deliberate distortion of science, hate or discriminatory content, illegal content and reckless dangerous technical instructions are grounds for exclusion in the working document. If serious plagiarism is found later, a prize or quality status may be withdrawn.

Artificial intelligence is allowed if it is disclosed and checked. It is not an automatic disqualification. Tools may help with structure, language, grammar, translation, code samples and visuals. The author must name the tool, the purpose and the scale of use, and remains responsible for every fact. Unchecked generated material should not be treated as original or reliable.

An appeal, if offered, would cover procedure only — not an academic or professional mark. The proposed window is five working days after results are announced, before a separately appointed commission.

This is the intended model, not a signed contract or a finished ethics code.