CHEM 795
Research Proposal Assignment Rubric
With the exception of the ‘Required Elements’, assignments that fall between specific criteria can be awarded a mark corresponding to the midpoint of the marks for those criteria. Total assignment is marked out of 20 marks.
Required elements
Inclusion of one original figure (1 mark if included, -2 marks if not included)
Page limit (-4 marks if > 1 page).
Content (8 marks total)
Context of the research proposal is clearly introduced, demonstrating a deep understanding of the current state-of-the-art in the field and supported by many relevant references to the scientific literature. The research question and aims of the proposed work are clearly indicated and the ability of these aims to address a knowledge gap self-evident from the context provided. Methods are clearly indicated with excellent use of the scientific literature to support the relevance and appropriateness of these methods for the proposed work. There is an excellent account of expected outcomes within the context of the wider field of the proposal. (8 marks)
Context of the research proposal is introduced, demonstrating an understanding of the current state-of- the-art in the field and supported by several relevant references to the scientific literature. The research question and aims of the proposed work are indicated and an attempt made to link these aims to address a knowledge gap. Methods to be used are indicated with their relevance supported by some references to the scientific literature. There is a good attempt at an account of expected outcomes within the context of the wider field of the proposal. (6 marks)
Context of the research proposal is outlined with an awareness of some prior work in the field, supported by a few references to the scientific literature. A research question and aims of the proposed work are introduced with some indication of the knowledge gap which will be addressed. Methods to be used are mentioned and generally relevant for the proposed work. There is an attempt at discussing expected outcomes within the context of the wider field of the proposal. (4 marks)
Prior work in the field is discussed but references to scientific literature are absent or inconsistent and the state-of-the-art not clearly discussed. An indication of the nature of the research question or aims are presented but the specific knowledge gap being addressed is poorly defined. Methods to be used are mentioned but are not supported by the scientific literature or there is some relevance to the work but their connection with the overall approach is unclear. Expected outcomes are only mentioned vaguely and limited or no attempt made to link to the broader field. (2 marks)
Presentation, Structure and Layout (4 marks total)
Has a clear logical structure from context to expected outcomes with excellent logic flow between sections and paragraphs used to separate ideas. References and in-text citations are consistently and correctly formatted in a relevant numbered ACS style. with no errors. (4 marks)
Has a logical structure from context to expected outcomes, with links made between sections and paragraphs used to separate ideas. References and in-text citations are consistently and correctly formatted in a relevant numbered ACS style. with very few errors (< 3). (3 marks)
Contains all required sections from context to references, but minimal attempts made to link between sections. References and in-text citations are consistently formatted in a style outside of ACS or contain some errors (> 3) in implementation. (2 marks)
Proposal is poorly structured and missing some sections or their presence is unclear. References are inconsistently formatted or there are significant errors but an attempt is made. (1 mark)
Writing (4 marks total)
Excellent level of English language used. Well-structured writing and easy to read. No or very few grammar or spelling issues. Language is clear and unambiguous in meaning. (4 marks)
Good use of English language. Mainly well-structured writing and article generally flows well. A few minor grammar or spelling issues. Language is mostly clear and unambiguous in meaning. (3 marks)
English language is coherent but some grammar and spelling issues; some expressions are unclear or terms used not defined. (2 marks)
Language difficult to understand and follow in places but there is a clear written structure, some terms but these are unclear or poorly defined. (1 mark)
Figure (4 marks total including required element mark)
Figure is of excellent quality, clearly conveys the key aspects of the proposed research idea and strongly supports the discussion in the text. (3 marks)
Figure is of above average quality. It is linked to the discussion in the text and portrays some elements of the overall research idea. (2 marks)
Figure is of average quality. It relates to the overall research idea and the discussion in the text but does not support the discussion. (1 mark)
Figure is absent or of poor quality and unrelated to the discussion or research idea. (0 marks)