Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

R E V I E W
Type of scientific paper: / Project Thesis I / Project Thesis II / Bachelor Thesis
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Title of thesis:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Author:
Class:
Academic Tutor
Function and purpose of the following evaluation:
This guideline is to be used for the evaluation of academic papers within the Bachelor’s degree programme at the Cooperative State University Baden-Wuerttemberg in the economics department. Academic papers are:
  • project thesis: a project thesis is written to document the knowledge transfer from the scientific basis gained to the phases of academic study and workplace training. The findings of the respective special branch of science are to be applied to an operational question. The project thesis has to satisfy the criteria of scientific work.
  • bachelor thesis: the bachelor thesis is to show that the students are in a position to dealwith a practical problem within a specific time,independentlyand using practice-oriented as well as scientifically proven knowledge and methods.
Project thesis and bachelor thesis thus follow principally an identical assessment logic.However, the evaluation level to be applied to the assessment criteria has to be adjusted to the theoretical and practical knowledge and insight level of each academic year!
Together over all four review sections a maximum score of 100 points can be reached:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Assessment Summary (details see the following points 1. – 4.):
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Of max. 100 points are achieved:0 / The work will be evaluated with:
Date:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Signature:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Evaluation Information:

Extreme deficitsin one of the four review sections usually lead to a rejection of the entire thesis (comprehensiveexplanatory statement)!

Orientation grid to calculate grades (to determine the detailed grade in each interval see attached grading scale)!

1,0 to 1,5=very good / 100 to90points / = outstanding performance
1,6 to 2,5=good / 89to 74points / = performance significantly above average
2,6 to 3,5=satisfactory / 73to 58points / = performance that meets average requirements
3,6 to 4,0=sufficient / 57to 50 points / = performance that despite shortcomings still meets the requirements
4,1 to 5,0=not sufficient / 49 to34points / 34points 5,0 / = performance that does no longer meet the requirements due to serious shortcomings

AProject Thesis I with 50 points or more is evaluated with „passed“, and with less than 50 points evaluated with „failed”!

1. Understanding and structuring the subject
Evaluation criteria of thereviewer / academic tutor / Evaluation tendency
(only one Xper criterion)
– – – o + ++ / Not
relevant
intelligible and precisely worded problem and objective of the thesis
correct an complete understanding of the subject
logical, meaningful structuringof the subject with reasonable depth for the subject
topicality and practical relevance of the topic
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Remarks:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Maximum Score:20 / Score Achieved:
2. Processing the subject
Evaluation criteria of thereviewer / academic tutor / Evaluation tendency
(only one X per criterion)
– – – o + ++ / Not
relevant
appropriate conceptual differentiation and stringent application inprocessing the subject, correct use of subject specific terminology
justification and selection of an adequate research methodology for theresearch problem
coherent conversionof subject and outline structure as regards content and processing the subject, logically consistent argumentation
analysis and critical evaluation of existing solution patterns in theory and practice
development of distinct approaches resp. ideas with problem solving potential for practical implementation
critical reflection of ownoutcomes and assessment of probable future developments
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Remarks:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Maximum Score:40 / Score Achieved:
3. Selecting and exploiting literature
Evaluation criteria of thereviewer / academic tutor / Evaluation tendency
(only one X per criterion)
– – – o + ++ / Not
relevant
scientific sources adequate to the research problem included to a suitable extent (e.g. monographs, collections, scientific journals, working paper etc.)
practical, e.g. company- or industry- specific, information included
critical distancein selecting and exploiting literature
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Remarks:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Maximum Score:30 / Score Achieved:
4. Formal aspects
Evaluation criteria of thereviewer / academic tutor / Evaluation tendency
(only one X per criterion)
– – – o + ++ / Not
relevant
correct appearance (e.g. cover page, declaration of honour, print image)
formal correct preparation of all necessary directories (content and sources, if necessary figures, tables and abbreviations as well as appendix)
correct application of spelling rules, grammar and punctuation, appropriate linguistic style
compliance with the rules about the scope of the project thesis (20-30 pages) or bachelor thesis (60-80 pages), variations are only possible with approval by academic tutor
exact indication of all foreign sources by the use ofcorrect and consistent quotation technique
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Remarks:
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –

Criteria forthe evaluation of scientific papers

Maximum Score:10 / Score Achieved:

Points- and Grading Scale

very good / 100 / 1,0 / satisfactory / 64 / 3,1
99 / 1,0 / 63 / 3,2
98 / 1,0 / 62 / 3,2
97 / 1,1 / 61 / 3,3
96 / 1,1 / 60 / 3,4
95 / 1,2 / 59 / 3,4
94 / 1,2 / 58 / 3,5
93 / 1,3 / sufficient / 57 / 3,6
92 / 1,4 / 56 / 3,6
91 / 1,4 / 55 / 3,7
90 / 1,5 / 54 / 3,8
good / 89 / 1,6 / 53 / 3,8
88 / 1,6 / 52 / 3,9
87 / 1,7 / 51 / 3,9
86 / 1,8 / 50 / 4,0
85 / 1,8 / not
sufficient / 49 / 4,1
84 / 1,9 / 48 / 4,1
83 / 1,9 / 47 / 4,2
82 / 2,0 / 46 / 4,2
81 / 2,1 / 45 / 4,3
80 / 2,1 / 44 / 4,4
79 / 2,2 / 43 / 4,4
78 / 2,2 / 42 / 4,5
77 / 2,3 / 41 / 4,6
76 / 2,4 / 40 / 4,6
75 / 2,4 / 39 / 4,7
74 / 2,5 / 38 / 4,8
satisfactory / 73 / 2,6 / 37 / 4,8
72 / 2,6 / 36 / 4,9
71 / 2,7 / 35 / 4,9
70 / 2,8 / 34 and less / 5,0
69 / 2,8
68 / 2,9
67 / 2,9
66 / 3,0
65 / 3,1
updated status: 21.01.2013 / – 1 –