ECON7950 Research Methods in Economics

Assessment 1 – Annotated Bibliography

Instructions and Marking Criteria

Overview

An annotated bibliography is a list of research source (i.e., a bibliography) on a particular topic of research, accompanied by a brief commentary on each entry. The commentary provides a summary and evaluation of the entry relative to the topic of research. It can be used as a tool for researchers to gain an overview of the literature background at the early stage of their research projects.

Your Task

There are two tasks in this assessment:

State and classify your research question.

You research question should be a research question suitable for a master’s thesis in Economics. You are asked to state your research question and aims. You should identify the field of economics to which the question belongs and list the keywords for relevant literature search.

List at least three (3) permissible bibliography items.

Each bibliographic item should include a full bibliographic citation of the item in APA 7th citation style.

A detailed annotation is required for the first bibliographic item listed. Using the template provided, include the following:

The research question(s) the bibliographic item seeks to answer;

The method(s) the bibliographic item adopts to answer the question(s) stated in (a);

The results the item provides in answering the question(s) in (a); and

Your evaluation and reflection of the item.

A brief annotation is required for each of the other two bibliographic items. Using the template provided, you should include in a brief annotation the following:

A brief summary of the content of the item in relation to your research question; and

An evaluation of how the item is related to your research question.

See Permissible Bibliography Items, below, for eligible bibliography items.

You can list more than three items if you want. If you list more than three permissible items, you will be marked on the first three permissible items listed. However, if you list less than three permissible items, you will receive zero marks on the missing item(s).

Please use the Annotated Bibliography Template provided (available on the course Blackboard site, under Assessment -> Annotated Bibliography) to complete this assessment. The template will guide you through the tasks with questions and prompts.

Permissible Bibliography Items

Each bibliography item you list must be:

A scholarly article. This must either be

An article published in a peer-reviewed journal; or

A working paper in one of the top-500 working paper series according to IDEAS/RePEc Aggregate Rankings for Working Paper Series – see the ranking here: https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.wpseries.all.html

Note 1: You can check whether a journal is peer-reviewed using UQ Library’s filter (refer to the lecture on Library Resources).

Note 2: The RePEc Working Paper Series ranking is crude and shouldn’t be used as an exact guide to working paper series. However, the top-500 series should have included most of the items students may wish to use, including NBER Working Papers, IZA Discussion Papers, IMF Working Papers, arXiv.org… to name a few. Students who find good working papers that does not qualify should contact the course coordinator in advance to discuss their choice.

Published in English. If an article is published in another language but has an official full-text translation, cite the translated item (not the original) and use it for your bibliography. Translations that have not been unauthorised by the author/publisher – including machine translations – are not acceptable. Items with an English title and/or abstract but with the main text in another language will not be accepted.

The following items are NOT permitted:

Articles from non-peer-reviewed journals

Books (even if they are scholarly books – they are typically too long for this task)

Theses

Government or consultancy reports

Newspaper or magazine articles

Blogs or social media post

Contents featuring a research article but is NOT the article itself

Interviews, podcast, or their transcripts

Databases

If you are interested in research mentioned in a non-scholarly source (e.g., research findings mentioned in a Conversation article), locate the scholarly article referenced/linked in the non-scholarly source and use it instead.

Using a non-permitted bibliographical item will result in a mark of zero (0) for that item’s annotation.

If you are using a peer-reviewed journal article, there is no restriction on the ranking of the journal. However, it is typically easier to identify the “what, how and why” in high quality articles as they are written with these questions in mind.

Likewise, you are not restricted to articles in economic journals for your literature choice. However, if you pick from sources that are not classified by the JEL codes, you will need to classify them yourself. In addition, it is up to you to argue the relevance of the article to your research question.

Format

Please use the Annotated Bibliography Template provided to complete this assessment. We reserve the rights to not accept any submission that does not use the template.

Citation should be in APA 7th style. JEL classification codes should be at alphabet + 2-digit level.

Word limits for individual fields are marked clearly in the template. Exceeding a word limit by more than 20% will result in mark deduction. Going under the word limit by 20% carries no penalty per se, but you may lose marks due to insufficient content.

Submission

Submit your completed Annotated Bibliography Template electronically to Turnitin through the link on the course Blackboard site before Monday, 31st March 2025 1:00pm Brisbane time (GMT+10).

Requests for the granting of extensions must be made online via https://my.uq.edu.au/node/218/2#2 with supporting documentation before the submission due date/time.  If an extension is approved, the new agreed date for submission will be noted on the application and the student notified through their student email. Extensions cannot exceed the number of days you suffered from a medical condition, as stated on the medical certificate.

Where an extension has not been previously approved, a penalty of 10% of the maximum possible mark allocated for the assessment item will be deducted per day for up to 7 calendar days, at which point any submission will not receive any marks unless an extension has been approved. Each 24-hour block is recorded from the time the submission is due.

Marking Criteria

Criteria

Marks per sub-task

Total Marks

Research Question

Statement and explanation of research question

5

Classification of research question

5

10

Detailed bibliography annotation

Citation and classification

5

Summary and description

5

Evaluation and reflection

5

15

Brief bibliography annotation (2 x 5 marks each)

10

Total

35

See Appendix A for a detailed marking rubric.

Resources

UQ’s Library depository of past theses – search for “economics masters theses” to find examples of good master theses in economics: https://espace.library.uq.edu.au

IDEAS/RePEc Aggregate Rankings for Working Paper Series: https://ideas.repec.org/top/top.wpseries.all.html

JEL classification codes and the classification guide: https://www.aeaweb.org/jel/guide/jel.php

UQ Library APA 7th citation style guide: https://guides.library.uq.edu.au/referencing/apa7

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides emerging tools that may support students in completing this assessment task. Students may appropriately use AI in completing this assessment task. Students must clearly reference any use of AI in each instance.

A failure to reference AI use may constitute student misconduct under the Student Code of Conduct.

Academic Integrity

You are expected to maintain academic integrity and appropriate conduct. Unacceptable behaviours include, but are not limited to:

Plagiarism;

Fabrication of references or evidence;

Failure to reference AI use; and

Soliciting or aiding and abetting contract cheating.

Academic misconduct will be handled in accordance with UQ’s policy regarding student misconduct.

Plagiarism is defined by the University as:

the act of misrepresenting as one’s own original work the ideas, interpretations, words or creative works of another either intentionally or unintentionally. These include published and unpublished documents, designs, music, sounds, images, photographs, computer codes and ideas gained through working in a group. These ideas, interpretations, words or works may be found in print and/or electronic media.

Student Integrity and Misconduct Policy

It can occur even if you are filling in a template (rather than writing an essay). Accidental plagiarism is still considered plagiarism and will be handled as an academic misconduct. See UQ Library Guide on Plagiarism if you are unsure what requires referencing. If you haven’t done so, please complete UQ’s compulsory Academic Integrity Modules (AIM).

By submitting your assessment item, you indicate your commitment to UQ’s academic integrity pledge as summarised in the following declaration:

“I certify that I have completed this assessment in an honest, fair and trustworthy manner, that my submitted answers are entirely my own work, and that I have neither given nor received any unauthorised assistance on this assessment”.

Appendix A

Marking Criteria and Standards

Criteria & mark

Excellent

Good

Satisfactory

Inadequate

Weak

Poor

5

4

3

2

1

0

Research Question (10 marks total)

Research question – statement and explanation (5)

Research question precisely stated and explained that one can envisage the potential answer and the path to it.

Research question unambiguously stated and explained that one can envisage the potential answer, though the path to an answer is less clear.

Research question adequately stated and explained that the relevant field(s) and literature are obvious, though it is unclear what would constitute a satisfactory answer to the question.

Research question vaguely stated and explained that, while the relevant field(s) can be inferred, the research direction is unclear.

Research question opaquely stated and explained that the intention of the researcher is unclear.

Research question not stated or incomprehensible.

Research question – classification (5)

Relevant fields and topics in economics precisely and accurately identified. JEL classification accurately provided.

Keywords precisely identified. Conceivable variants included. Search terms accurate and efficient.

Relevant fields and topics in economics appropriately identified. JEL classification accurately provided.

Keywords appropriately identified. Common variants included. Search terms accurate.

Relevant fields and topics in economics loosely but reasonably identified. JEL classifications omit cross-listings.

Keywords reasonably identified. Obvious variants included. Search terms useable but may be too wide or too narrow.

Relevant fields and topics in economics identified with minor inaccuracies. Some JEL classification codes are conspicuously missing or redundant.

Keywords inaccurate. Obvious omission of variants. Search terms impractical.

Misidentification of relevant fields and topics in economics, reflecting misunderstanding of economics. JEL classification at higher level only.

Keywords erroneous. Serious omission of variants. Search terms unlikely to return useful results.

No or erroneous identification of relevant fields and topics in economics, reflecting little understanding of economics. JEL classification not provided.

Keywords and variants not provided or irrelevant. Search terms unusable.

5

4

3

2

1

0

Detailed Annotation (15 marks total)

Detailed annotation – citation and classification (5)

Accurate citation and correct citation style.

JEL classification and keywords accurately provided.

Data type correctly identified.

Accurate citation but minor inconsistency or error in style.

JEL classification and keywords accurately provided.

Data type correctly identified.

Minor detail missing in the citation, inconsistency or error in style.

Minor omission of JEL codes or keywords.

Main data type correctly identified.

Detail missing in the citation, requiring additional effort to ascertain sources.

Missing or redundant JEL codes or keywords.

Data type misidentified across nearby categories.

Critical information missing in the citation.

Obvious omission or misreport of JEL codes or keywords.

Data type misidentified across distant categories.

No or uninformative citation.

No JEL code or keyword provided.

Data type not identified.

Detailed annotation – summary and description (5)

Precise identification of the research question and the main variables. Accurate identification of methods leading into the results described.

Accurate identification of the research question and the main variables. Adequate identification of methods and can connect them to the results described.

Adequate identification of the research question and the main variables. Some misunderstanding of methods but can draw loose connections to the results described.

Superficial identification of the research question and the main variables. Misunderstanding of methods without considering the connections to the results described.

Mistaken identification of the research question and the main variables. Erroneous identification of methods that does not lead into the results described.

No or critically flawed identification of the research question and the main variables. No identification of methods. No or severely flawed description of results.

Detailed annotation – evaluation and reflection (5)

Thoughtful evaluation of the item tightly linked to student’s own research question. Practical pathways of building own research upon the item identified.

Accurate evaluation of the item linked to students’ own research question. Feasible pathways of building own research upon the item identified.

Adequate evaluation of the item with loose links to students’ own research question. Potential pathways of building own research upon the item identified.

General evaluation of the item with superficial links to students’ own research question. Vague indication of how own research can be built upon the item.

Evaluation of the item unrelated to student’s own research question. Unclear how own research can be built upon the item.

No evaluation of elements of the item. No indication of how own research can be built upon the item.

5

4

3

2

1

0

Brief Annotation (2 x 5 marks each)

Brief annotation (5 each)

Accurate citation and correct citation style.

Succinct summaries of bibliographical items. Information from the summaries pertinent to the research question stated.

Evaluation illustrates precisely how own research question fits into existing literature.

Accurate citation but minor inconsistency or error in style.

Precise summaries of bibliographical items. Information from the summaries applicable to the research question stated.

Evaluation indicates how research question fits into existing literature.

Minor detail missing in the citation, inconsistency or error in style.

Imprecise summaries of bibliographical items. Information from the summaries general and not specific to the research question.

Evaluation demonstrates an educated attempt to position research question against existing literature, but the articulation is imprecise.

Detail missing in the citation, requiring additional effort to ascertain sources.

Sketchy summaries of bibliographical items. Relationship between information from the summary and the research question far-fetched.

Evaluation attempts to position research question against existing literature, but the articulation is sketchy.

Critical information missing in the citation.

Superficial summaries of bibliographical items. Information from the summaries inaccurate or of little value to the research question.

Evaluation provides little indication of how research question is related to existing literature.

No or uninformative citation.

No or incomprehensible summaries of bibliographical items. Information from the summaries wrong or unrelated to the research question.

Evaluation provides no indication of how research question is related to existing literature.

Other general marking criteria/standards/penalty

Using a non-permissible item for an annotation: Zero (0) mark for that annotation.

Exceeding word limits: For every 20% of the word limit above 120% of the word limit, 10% of the maximum mark for the relevant part/section will be deducted.

Late penalty: 10% of the maximum mark per calendar day for up to 7 calendar days, at which point any submission will not receive any marks unless an extension has been approved. Each 24-hour block is recorded from the time the submission is due.

Suspected academic misconduct: The case will be referred to the Academic Integrity Officer. Decisions and/or penalty will depend on the outcome of the process.