SCI8103 – Research Fundamentals and Ethics
Literature Review – Part B
Peer Review Marking Rubric
Criteria for Grading Fails Completely Unsatisfactory Needs Improvement Competent Exemplary Result
Articulation of ideas and concepts I didn’t understand what the author was trying to communicate. I didn’t understand the concepts being communicated, there seemed to be either information missing or information not explained. I understood the concepts being communicated, but I felt more information should have been provided or better explained by the author. I understood the concepts and I mostly understood the aims of the ideas of the review. I understood all the ideas and concepts articulated here (and not because I am familiar with the topic).
Comments:
Written Review supports the theme of the research question The review provided does not appear to match the theme of title/research question. The review provided sometimes didn’t match the theme of the title/research question with information added that did not appear relevant. The review seems to support the research question but at times it felt unfocused or unclear in its aims. The review mostly supports the theme of the research question The review completely supports the theme of the research question. There wasn’t anything provided that needed to be removed.
Comments:
Provision of critical analysis or justification for pursuit of the research question. I did not find any critical anaylsis, just a presentation of facts with no linkage of that information or justification/ evidence presented. Use this level if it does not appear to match with the criteria either side of this level. It appeared there was some critical analysis but it didn’t seem clear, or that the author understood what they needed to do to justify the pursuit of the research question. Use this level if it does not appear to match with the criteria either side of this level. I could definitely see the critical analysis and justification in this review.
Comments:
Logical order and structure – presentation of ideas Not logical presentation of ideas at all. No structure evident. No transitions between major points. Use this level if it does not appear to match with the criteria either side of this level. Sometimes unclear structure, placement of ideas in sections that could be reorganised. Transitions could be improved by adding linking sentences. Use this level if it does not appear to match with the criteria either side of this level. Logical and structure really well done. Great transition between points made.
Comments:
Definition of terms and concepts – level of jargon No definition of technical terms. I didn’t understand what most of the paper meant because the level of jargon was too high. I had to google lots of terms to figure out just a little of what it meant. Lots of technical terms or jargon not defined. I needed to google many terms so I could understand what the paper was about. There were terms that were defined that I would not have known, but also terms not defined, which made the reading experience uneven as I had to look up some words. Nearly all the terms were defined. Just a few were not, but I am not sure if that’s because I have never heard of them or they are jargon from that particular research area. Every term that I didn’t recognise was defined so I didn’t have to go and look up any words to understand what this paper was about.
Comments:
Turnitin Not sure that the author looked at their Turnitin report – seems to be a lot of issues with lots of matches occuring. Not confident about the work presented here as the author’s. Lots of matches in Turnitin, and it seems the author used a lot of someone elses work and just changed the words around. Doesn’t look like author checked their Turnitin report. There is the occasional match in Turnitin, sometimes a whole sentence. Possibly just lazy paraphrasing though rather than an issue that needs addresssing. Only very sporadic matches in Turnitin, and not clear why they would be matched. The work seems okay otherwise. No matches in Turnitin at all. It appears to be all the author’s own words in expression.
Comments:
1. Appropriate references
2. Correct referencing
References not included, or references included are not relevant at all. References missing, or not enough included, or mostly irrelevant to the paper. References are mostly correct, and mostly appropriate. Some errors that need to be corrected or papers reconsidered for inclusion. References appear appropriate and correct with just some minor errors or perhaps a few papers that should be reconsidered. References are correctly provided and appropriate for this paper.
Comments:
Overall presentation (including spelling and grammatical errors) Complete lack of structure and many errors Either a complete lack of structure or many errors Somewhat lacking in structure, neatness and/or many errors Neat and structured but with some errors Neat and structured, very few to no errors
Comments:
1. Did you enjoy reading the review?
2. Did you learn something from the review?
No, I didn’t learn or enjoy reading this because it made no sense and was very confusing. Not really, there were some parts that were okay but I learned or enjoyed the occasional concept. It was okay, I think more work could be done to make it more enjoyable/ educational Yes, I did find this mostly enjoyable and educational. Some improvements would definitely make it more enjoyable etc. Yes, I found this both educational and enjoyable.
Comments:
Overall comments (Use Section 4.4 to guide your overall statement)