Artemia Investigation Report

Abstract: 5%

5 points An excellent concise summary of the purpose and findings of the study. Perfect length and detail. Strongly entices the reader to read further.

4 points A good summary of the purpose and findings of the study. Suitable length and detail and rather enticing to read further.

3 points Sufficient detail to convey the main purpose and findings but level of detail somewhat lacking or inappropriate.

2 points Sufficiently detailed to convey most of the purpose and findings but inappropriate level of detail in some respects. Not particularly enticing to read further.

0-1 point Inappropriate level of detail, poor language, confused structure, rather unenticing to the reader.

Introduction and definition of area of study: 10%

8-10 points Thoroughly related to “discipline” in a wider context; scope is accurately delimited and justified, outline of study area and objectives entirely appropriate.

7 points Well related to “discipline” in a wider context; care has been taken to delimit and/or justify but not arguably so; outline and objectives of study area almost mostly appropriate.

6 points Related to “discipline” by way of naming and loose associations but with errors relating to wider context; delimitation / justification present but lacking rigor; outline of study area and purpose reasonably clear.

5 points Related to “discipline” but only just and misses the opportunity to link to wider context; vague attempts to delimit area are made but lack conviction, clear justification and rigor; outline of study area and purpose is clear but raises doubt over appropriateness and full understanding.

0-4 points At most (and on a continuum commencing at 49% and regressing to 0%): relationship to “discipline” is tenuous, unrelated to the wider context; area ill- defined; outline of study area and/or purpose is muddled/ confusing / inappropriate / absent.

Experimental method: 10% 8-10 points Perfectly described and could easily be replicated in a future related or identical study. No apparent flaws in process and design minimises potential random influential factors

7 points Very well described and could be replicated in most respects in a future related study. A few relatively minor flaws with respect to sequencing activities and/or lack of sufficient consideration of possible random influential factors.

6 points Generally well described and in most respects could be replicated in a future study, although several aspects were not adequately described. Also, possible random influential factors were not particularly well considered nor controlled.

5 points Lack of coherent flow although most components described. Lack of attention and/or apparent control of possible random influential factors.

0-4 points Poorly or barely adequate description. Could not replicate experiment based on the description. Little/no apparent consideration of possible influential factors.

Presentation, description and analysis of results: 30%

24–30 points Excellent visual presentation and summary of data. No visual flaws. Highly coherent description which matches data perfectly. Highly appropriate and accurate level of numerical analysis.

21-23 points Visual presentation of data and data summaries are very good. A few minor formatting and/or grammatical errors but not clouding the main findings. Generally coherent and main points clear. Appropriate level of numerical analysis.

18-20 points Visual presentation of data and data summaries are quite good, with sufficient detail to convey the main findings. Sufficiently coherent and generally appropriate level of numerical analysis.

15-17 points Visual presentation of data and data summaries are adequate but lack coherence and are confused/unclear in places. Inappropriate level of numerical analysis for the discipline and level.

0-14 points Visual presentation of data and data summaries and descriptions are absent/seriously deficient or flawed, containing numerous errors, with lack of attention to detail and/or scientific conventions.

Discussion and validity of conclusions, and recommendations for future studies :35%

28-35 points Logical and fully supported by evidence from the present dataset and published information; extremely well organized; high level of originality and thoughtful critique; identifies future opportunities for research; conveys limitations of project and method employed and provides constructive criticism.

25-27 points Logical but less strong in evidence with respect to the present dataset and/or published information; reasonable level of originality and generally well organized; demonstrates a simple understanding of further research; shows understanding of the limitations of the study.

21-24 points Logical but lacking adequate discussion; shows a fair grasp of the implications of the study but without deep insight; shows some ability to identify future needs and/or limitations of the study.

18-20 points Not fully logical; some obvious discussion / conclusions / recommendations omitted; insight into value of work not demonstrated; little consideration of further areas for research; conclusions and/or recommendations valid but random in organization.

0-17 points Based upon uncertain evidence, frequently illogical; conclusion/s and/or recommendations omitted; little evidence of organization of conclusions; no / mistaken views about the value and key outcomes of the study.

References; 5%

5 points A comprehensive range of highly appropriate literature included; citations and formatting correct and consistent throughout.

4 points A good range of appropriate literature included; citations and formatting were appropriate and correct throughout.

3 points A range of appropriate literature included; citations and formatting generally but not exclusively correct and consistent throughout

2 points Quite limited use of existing literature; citations and formatting inconsistent; inappropriate and/or lacking in several places.

0-1 point Very poor or no use of published literature.

Overall quality: 5% 5 points Fully documented including all major sections; report presentation commensurate with academic excellence; prose free from errors of spelling, punctuation; grammatically mature and fluent; vocabulary appropriate; style consistent with subject and content of report; typescript perfect; thoroughly proof-read.

4 points Documentation full (as adjacent); presentation free from major faults with very few errors of spelling, punctuation and structure; style and vocabulary reasonably mature and appropriate to subject and content.

3 points Documentation almost complete, could be improved; some carelessness in spelling punctuation, structure; style lacking final polish / not entirely consistent with content; readable and showing overall ability to write a scientific report.

2 points Documentation reasonably complete; shows awareness of appropriate pattern of presentation but has not particularly cohesive; errors of spelling, punctuation and structures quite evident; style awkward yet still readable; inconsistency with content noticeable.

0-1 point Documentation quite deficient; sections missing; wrongly ordered; presentation careless and difficult to follow; errors in spelling, punctuation, sentence structure, grammar; very difficult to read; vocabulary and style poorly developed and/or inappropriate; typescript messy with many errors.

Overall Score (out of 100)

83 – 100

72 – 76

60 – 65

49 – 53

44 or less