For Nicohwilliam

Evaluation of Critiques of Scientific Articles

Expert Proficient Apprentice Novice

Introduction

Clearly

summarizes the

aims of and

methods used by

the authors.

Summary is

complete, but

lacks clarity.

Picture

communicated is

not clear;

connection to

paper is not

obvious.

No real

introduction.

Data presentation

There is a clear

understanding of

experimental

design, especially

controls. It is also

clear that you

understand what

was observed and

how it relates to

the authors'

model or

hypothesis.

Some parts of

the experiments

have not been

understood. You

may not have a

clear grasp of the

model being

tested, or the

relevance of the

data

There are

significant gaps in

understanding, or

inaccuracies in

reporting the data.

You have shown

some

understanding,

but there are

clearly large parts

of the paper that

you haven't

mastered.

Hurriedly done,

with little

understanding.

Criticism

There is a clear

understanding of

the authors'

interpretation, of

the implications

of the results for

the hypothesis.

Outside

information is

brought to bear

on evaluating the

design and

conclusions.

Not quite as

clear an

understanding.

Less complete

evaluation of

design and

conclusions.

Uncritical

acceptance of

authors'

conclusions. Or

baseless

objections to

them.

Little or no

mention of

authors' intent.

Little or no

evaluation.

Cohesiveness

You have

selected the data

most relevant to

the authors' aims.

Your conclusions

actually make

results clearer.

Although the

most relevant

data are selected,

your picture of

the authors' aims

and conclusions

is not quite as

clear and/or

complete.

Some of the data

you have selected

do not seem as

relevant to the

overall aims of

the paper. You

seem to have

missed some

important parts.

Lack

understanding

of the paper or

its context.

Authors' aims

are unclear.

Spelling/grammar No spelling or

grammatical

errors.

Very few

spelling or

grammatical

errors.

Errors on almost

every page.

Apparently no

proofreading

done.

J. Cardon