Creating a scientifically colour accurate image is not that difficult. The easiest way to do this is to image with Johnson-Cousins photometric filters and then just use stars such as Vega as a white balance. These days it is easier through, the use of Aladin Sky Atlas where you can put in the coordinates and load up an interactive image with photometric results through various filters for hundreds of stars in a field. This is all for making a scientifically accurate picture.
I personally see it as being scientifically accurate as long as there is nothing added or subtracted. There isn't anything unscientific about doing HDR as a way of being able to see both the highlights and the lowlights. Via the screen stretch I can select whatever part of the image I want, whether the highlights or the low lights, mid tones, whatever. HDR does nothing more than allow all to visually be seen at once. Via a linear stretch I can select part of the range I want to see and study, HDR allows me to see it all at once (although it does destroy photometric results in the process, it is a good visual aid).
As for making one colour correct for us lowly humans, this is far more difficult! The main difficulty is quite simply that one persons red or green or blue is different to the next! I myself have some trouble differentiating between slight shades of green. My eyesight has me failing all colour tests, the ones that are designed to tell you whether you have colour blindness or not, I am not colour blind as such but I don't have subtle variations. So what I personally see as being a perfect colour balance (if I had a perfectly calibrated monitor and not a Macbook Pro!) has a very slim chance of being correct for most people.
I had never even heard of the Malin Awards until a few days ago, must just be a part of being new onto the astrophotography scene. If the awards are named after him I personally don't see any problem with him being the sole judge and picking whatever he likes, that's what you get for having your own awards
