BIOL1006 Scientific Report Rubric 2022 Criteria Grade Marks total Exceptional Excellent Good Satisfactory Room for improvement Absent Intro:
Title Complete, descriptive and concise Descriptive but lacking key
information Adequate Generic and uninformative Missing 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Intro: Review of relevant literature Exceptional analysis of relevant literature to establish the background and context for the current study Background is clearly explained through review of literature relevant to the research question Clear background with appropriate links to the literature. Some relevance to the context of the study provided Background is present but generic Little to no relevant context or background provided Missing 10 10 8.5 7 6 3 0 Intro: Significance Exceptional outline of knowledge gaps and significance that is well- integrated with existing literature Clear explanation of the significance is provided with appropriate links to the literature Significance of the study is appropriately explained Significance of the study is acknowledged Little consideration of significance, purpose, or relevance of study Missing 6 6 5 4 3 1.5 0 Intro: Hypothesis Well-defined, concise and well- integrated hypothesis(es) Clear
hypothesis(es) that integrate into the rest of the introduction
Hypothesis(es) relates to study Very unclear hypothesis(es) Missing 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Results: Written description Clearly and concisely described Results are clearly and objectively described Results are described objectively but may be slightly unclear Results are described in an unclear fashion and may include some interpretation and/or methods Results are poorly described Missing 8 8 7 6 5 2.5 0 Results: statistics Statistics are present clearly and concisely and well integrated into the written description All values (i.e. test statistic, d.f., and p-value) are clearly and concisely reported. Statistical results (test statistic, d.f., and p-values) reported for all tests. Significance of statistical test(s) reported Missing 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Results: Presentation of figure(s) and tables Clear presentation of data in figure(s) and/or table(s) with a figure or table legend that is informative, clear and concise, and appropriately placed Clear presentation of data with correct use of figure(s) and/or table(s) captions that are descriptive Data is presented in an appropriate way although some errors may exist in formatting or figure/table legends are lacking information or inappropriately placed Type of visual representation of data is appropriate but is unclear. Some data may be double presented. Data is incorrectly visually represented and/or raw data may be presented and/or there is excessive double presenting of results. Missing 8 8 7 5.5 4 2 0 Results: Reference to figures Well-integrated figure and/or table references that are clear, concise and sequential Figure and/or table reference(s) integrated into descriptions and are sequential Figure and/or table reference(s) are present Figure and/or table reference(s) are poorly referred to in the text Missing 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Discussion: Interpretation of the results relative to the hypothesis(es) Interpretation is clear, correct and logically links back to the hypothesis(es) Results are interpreted correctly with minimal reinstating of results and links back to the hypothesis(es). Interpretation is present without clear linkage to hypothesis(es). Results may be restated. Results are restated without interpretation Missing 3 3 2 1.5 0.5 0 Discussion: Effective use of scientific literature to compare patterns from current findings to past studies and provide explanations around the biology Integration is clear, concise and logical, incl
uding deeper analysis and consideration of the biological significance of the study to scientific knowledge. Existing literature is well integrated with current study and there is appropriately explained comparisons and contrasts around the biology. Effective comparison of current study with cited studies and there is some discussion around the biology. Other studies are cited and there is comparison to current study. Discussions around the biology is minimal. Little integration of current study to existing literature Missing 15 15 12 10 8 4 0 Discussion: Critical, evidence-based evaluation of methodology and suggestions for new research directions Recognises possible improvements to methodology from review and analysis of other studies. Provides an insightful discussion around the biology with reference to the literature to suggest extension of current study or new directions for research. Recognises improvements to methodology and acknowledges differences with other studies. Discusses biology with links to the other research studies to suggest changes for further work. Acknowledges improvements to methodology with clear elaboration of literature methods and suggests possible changes Acknowledges possible improvements to methodology based on literature and concept of continuing current study Little consideration of methodological improvements or suggestions for ongoing research. Missing 15 15 12 10 8 4 0 Discussion: Conclusion Clear, concise and well-structured conclusion with links to the research question(s), within the framework of what has been discussed Conclusion
to the study is clearly linked with the research question(s)
Conclusions to the study is present Inadequate or vague conclusion
Missing 2 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 References: in-text citations Minor or no citation errors Some citation errors present Major citation errors Missing 3 3 1.5 0.5 0 References:
Reference list Exceptional presentation of reference list that has
minor or no errors Reference list has some errors Poor presentation
reference list Missing 3 3 1.5 0.5 0 References: Appropriate choice of references All information from reliable sources including a broad range of primary literature Information was mostly drawn from reliable sources and own sources of primary literature were found. Information was mostly drawn from reliable sources but heavily relied on references provided References reflect some engagement with the primary literature Little or no use of references taken from reliable sources Missing 4 4 3 2.5 2 1 0 Writing and presentation: Assessment formatting Compliance
with all criteria Compliance with all but 1 criterion Compliance with
all but 2 criteria Compliance with all but 3 criteria Non-compliance
with 4+ criteria 5 5 4 3.5 3 1.5 Writing and presentation: Grammar and spelling, sentence and paragraph structure, use of scientific and formal language Exceptional readability with an outstanding command of the written scientific language Very good readability with an excellent command of the written scientific language Good readability where sentences and paragraphs flow logically and are mostly written with appropriate scientific language. Readability is adequate and some informal language used. Paragraphs are non-existent. Spelling and/or grammar are very poor. Persistent use of informal language Missing 5 5 4 3.5 3 1.5 0 Writing and presentation: Cohesion of report structure Exceptional flow of ideas with outstanding clarity of argument Ideas flow clearly throughout the report and arguments are logical Ideas are linked and follow a logical progression Progression of thought is understandable Poor structure to report and lack of coherence Missing 5 5 4 3.5 3 1.5 0