Scientific critical review paper
adeepgrg
CriticalReviewRubric.xlsxSheet1
| Content | Meets expectations | Adequate | Minimal effort |
| Format elements | |||
| Running header and footer | each page has a short title and author name at the top as a header; each page is numbered at the bottom | missing 1item | missing 2+ items |
| Length | minimum of 7 pages, maximum of 10 pages (excluding bibliography in page count) | either too short or too long by 1 page | length 2+ pages too long or too short |
| Voice | tone and style appropriate to audience; paper displays control, variety and complexity of prose; written in a professional manner; uses clear transitions that connect sentences and paragraphs; each paragraph has a topic sentence (typically the first sentence of each paragraph); entirely written in past tense | flow is disjointed; some paragraphs lacking topic sentences; occasionally uses slang; occasionally switches out of past tense | stream of consciousness, lacking organization, slang use common; does not adhere to past tense |
| Sections | Clear sections, including an introduction and Conclusion; subheadings that help reader follow organization (eg Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion of the evaluated articles; Introduction, Analysis and Conclusion for your paper); set apart from other text through an increase in font and bolding | sections given, but not easily distinguishable from body of text; breaks and titles help improve flow | section divisions do not help reader follow organization; too few or too many sections; section title not set apart from rest of text |
| Nuts&Bolts | 1 inch margins on all side; 12pt Arial font; double spaced; left-justified | 1 error | 2+ errors |
| Content | |||
| Introduction | |||
| Citation | cites each analyzed article completely and set off with bullet points and thereafter refers to each article by first author's last name; at least one supporting reference used | fails to cite all three articles or makes an error in the citation; has a supporting reference | fails to cite all three articles; makes 2+errors in the citations; has no supporting references |
| Summary | author's purpose; major methods used to accomplish purpose; what evidence obtained in support of author's objectives; interpretation of results | 1-2 summary elements missing | 3+ summary elements missing |
| Body, Analysis | |||
| Overall | follows the structure of the journal articles; evaluates each section of the article; highlight strengths and weakness of each section; evaluates each section thoroughly according to the points below | mostly follows the structure of the journal articles; does not highlight each articles strengths and weaknesses | little attempt to follow structure of the journal articles; only includes strengths or weakness, but not both; only evaluates 1/2 articles |
| Introduction | title of article appropriate; abstract statement of purpose and introduction of paper match; objectives/hypotheses of studies given; is the information given logically so that it builds to the stated objectives/hypotheses | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Methods | methods valid; enough detail given that could be repeated; are there flaws (sample selection, experimental design); flow logical and details pertinent | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Results | titles/legends of tables and figures accurate; data organization easy to interpret; text complements but does not repeat table/figure information; discrepancies between text and figures/tables; results test objectives/hypotheses | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Discussion | discussion not a repeat of results; interpretation logical given results; shortcomings of research discussed; interpretation supported by other cited research; are key studies considered; other studies/directions suggested | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Overview | abstract accurately summarize article, structure appropriate and divided logically; stylistic concerns | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Conclusion | |||
| Summary | sums up the strengths and weaknesses of each article | summary lacks some details, misses a strength/weakness of one of the articles | summary lacks detail, includes either strengths or weaknesses |
| Significance | establishes practical and theoretical significance of body of work; has your chosen article been cited by others; did your articles spark other researches hypotheses or questions; are there any practical applications; implication (social, political, technological, medical) to the research; cites at least one other supporting reference (unique from introduction) | logic not clear to the theoretical significance of the body of work; not thorough in establishing its significance; cites at least one other supporting reference (unique from introduction) | no connection to theoretical significance of body of work; fails to cite at least one supporting reference |
| LIterature cited | |||
| Format | one journal format chosen and used throughout in bibliography and in-text citations | some in-text citations were not in the same format; 1-2 errors in bibliography | consistency lacking for in-text citations; bibliography with 3+ formatting errors |
| Subject | Chosen articles were all on the same topic; topic was specific enough so that an analysis was possible | topics were not consistent or were too broad/general | each article was on a separate topic and the topics were without reasonable similarities |
| Citation | Each reference was used and cited correctly within the body of the paper; three focal references were analyzed; at least 5 references used | references were occasionally cited incorrectly; three focal references were analyzed; 4 total references used | two or fewer references were analyzed; no supporting references used |
| PDF timely | PDFs and citations were uploaded to blackboard by due date for topic choice | at least 1 PDF was received late, citations were uploaded by the due date | PDFs and citations, while received, were uploaded to blackboard after the due date |
Sheet2
| Content | Meets expectations | Adequate | Minimal effort |
| Format elements | |||
| Running header and footer | each page has a short title and author name at the top as a header; each page is numbered at the bottom | missing 1item | missing 2+ items |
| Length | minimum of 7 pages, maximum of 10 pages (excluding bibliography in page count) | either too short or too long by 1 page | length 2+ pages too long or too short |
| Voice | tone and style appropriate to audience; paper displays control, variety and complexity of prose; written in a professional manner; uses clear transitions that connect sentences and paragraphs; each paragraph has a topic sentence (typically the first sentence of each paragraph); entirely written in past tense | flow is disjointed; some paragraphs lacking topic sentences; occasionally uses slang; occasionally switches out of past tense | stream of consciousness, lacking organization, slang use common; does not adhere to past tense |
| Sections | Clear sections, including an introduction and Conclusion; subheadings that help reader follow organization (eg Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion of the evaluated articles; Introduction, Analysis and Conclusion for your paper); set apart from other text through an increase in font and bolding | sections given, but not easily distinguishable from body of text; breaks and titles help improve flow | section divisions do not help reader follow organization; too few or too many sections; section title not set apart from rest of text |
| Nuts&Bolts | 1 inch margins on all side; 12pt Arial font; double spaced; left-justified | 1 error | 2+ errors |
| Content | |||
| Introduction | |||
| Citation | cites each analyzed article completely and set off with bullet points and thereafter refers to each article by first author's last name; at least one supporting reference used | fails to cite all three articles or makes an error in the citation; has a supporting reference | fails to cite all three articles; makes 2+errors in the citations; has no supporting references |
| Summary | author's purpose; major methods used to accomplish purpose; what evidence obtained in support of author's objectives; interpretation of results | 1-2 summary elements missing | 3+ summary elements missing |
| Body, Analysis | |||
| Overall | follows the structure of the journal articles; evaluates each section of the article; highlight strengths and weakness of each section; evaluates each section thoroughly according to the points below | mostly follows the structure of the journal articles; does not highlight each articles strengths and weaknesses | little attempt to follow structure of the journal articles; only includes strengths or weakness, but not both; only evaluates 1/2 articles |
| Introduction | title of article appropriate; abstract statement of purpose and introduction of paper match; objectives/hypotheses of studies given; is the information given logically so that it builds to the stated objectives/hypotheses | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Methods | methods valid; enough detail given that could be repeated; are there flaws (sample selection, experimental design); flow logical and details pertinent | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Results | titles/legends of tables and figures accurate; data organization easy to interpret; text complements but does not repeat table/figure information; discrepancies between text and figures/tables; results test objectives/hypotheses | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Discussion | discussion not a repeat of results; interpretation logical given results; shortcomings of research discussed; interpretation supported by other cited research; are key studies considered; other studies/directions suggested | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Overview | abstract accurately summarize article, structure appropriate and divided logically; stylistic concerns | missing 1-3 points of evaluation for at least one of the articles | missing 3+ points to the evaluation for at least one of the articles; or missing 1 point of the evaluation for 2+ of the articles |
| Conclusion | |||
| Summary | sums up the strengths and weaknesses of each article | summary lacks some details, misses a strength/weakness of one of the articles | summary lacks detail, includes either strengths or weaknesses |
| Significance | establishes practical and theoretical significance of body of work; has your chosen article been cited by others; did your articles spark other researches hypotheses or questions; are there any practical applications; implication (social, political, technological, medical) to the research; cites at least one other supporting reference (unique from introduction) | logic not clear to the theoretical significance of the body of work; not thorough in establishing its significance; cites at least one other supporting reference (unique from introduction) | no connection to theoretical significance of body of work; fails to cite at least one supporting reference |
| LIterature cited | |||
| Format | one journal format chosen and used throughout in bibliography and in-text citations | some in-text citations were not in the same format; 1-2 errors in bibliography | consistency lacking for in-text citations; bibliography with 3+ formatting errors |
| Subject | Chosen articles were all on the same topic; topic was specific enough so that an analysis was possible | topics were not consistent or were too broad/general | each article was on a separate topic and the topics were without reasonable similarities |
| Citation | Each reference was used and cited correctly within the body of the paper; three focal references were analyzed; at least 5 references used | references were occasionally cited incorrectly; three focal references were analyzed; 4 total references used | two or fewer references were analyzed; no supporting references used |
| PDF timely | PDFs and citations were uploaded to blackboard by due date for topic choice | at least 1 PDF was received late, citations were uploaded by the due date | PDFs and citations, while received, were uploaded to blackboard after the due date |
