Grading rubric for ROUGH DRAFT of PAPER!

PLEASE ATTACH THIS TO THE FRONT OF YOUR PAPER.

Excellent / Good / Not-So-Good / Comments/Points
Proof of experiment
(2 point) / □Satisfactory tangible proof that the experiment was conducted
(2 points) / □Possible
(1 point) / □I have my doubts!
(0 points)
Format and Presentation
(2 points) / □Appropriate title
□Correct general format (typed, double spaced, section headings, etc.)
□Well written
□Content is properly arranged into the different sections
□Any references used are properly cited
(2 points) / □Generally correct format, 1 significant error or multiple minor errors
□Generally well written but some sections with writing problems, or numerous minor writing problems
□Reference citations present but with problems
(1 point) / □Poor title or no title
□More than 1 significant format error or very numerous minor errors
□Writing problems affect comprehension or are very widespread
□References not cited acceptably
□(0 Points)
Experimental Design
(2 points) / □Experiment is well controlled
□Experimental group and control group have > 20 independent data points each (some exceptions may be made for difficult/time consuming experiments)
(2 points) / □A well-meaning attempt at controlling experiment, but not technically proper control(s)
□Experimental group and control group have > 10 data points each
(1 point) / □Experiment not controlled
□Experimental group and control group have <10 data points each
(0 points)
Introduction
(2 point) / □Purpose of experiment clearly stated
□Includes appropriate background information
(2 points) / □Purpose implied or stated but not clearly
□Background a little too detailed, or too basic (1 point) / □Purpose not stated or poorly stated
□Insufficient background
(0 points)
Materials and Methods
(2 points) / □Describes what was done in paragraph form
□Written in passive voice, past tense
□Appropriate level of depth
□Statistical test used in paper is mentioned
(2 points) / □Content is good but problem with format
□Usually passive voice but some problems
□Sometimes too detailed or too vague
□Mention analysis but not the actual test
(1 point) / □Not in passive voice
□Too detailed or too vague/incomplete
□No mention of statistical analysis
(0 points)
Results
(2 point) / □Uses appropriate figures and tables to present data, these are clear and easy to understand
□All figures have proper titles
□Text describing figures and tables briefly is present
(2 points) / □Well-meaning effort to present data but with some problems in the presentation
□Titles present but with problems
□Text describing figures present but with problems
(1 point) / □Significant data missing or misleading or confusing presentation
□Titles absent or unclear
□Text describing figures absent or hard to understand
(0 points)
Discussion
(2 point) / □Results are not just repeated but are explained and interpreted thoroughly
□Statistics performed correctly and explained well
□outside research (peer reviewed) incorporated well into the paper
(2 points) / □Some effort to explain results, but incomplete or with some minor errors
□Statistics performed correctly, interpreted essentially correctly, but not explained well
□outside research (peer reviewed) separate, not well integrated into the paper(1 point) / □No explanations of results, or major errors in interpretations of results
□Statistics not performed or performed incorrectly
□Significant error in interpretation of statistics
□No outside research or research is not peer reviewed
(0 points)
Abstract
(1 point) / □Restates hypothesis clearly
□Restates results clearly
□Summarizes discussion including all pertinent points / □Restates hypothesis but not clearly
□Results are not states clearly
□Summarizes some of discussion but excludes some pertinent points / □Missing hypothesis
□Missing results
□No summary of discussion