ECON7830 Assessment 4: Article review (on same article presented in tutorials).
1000-1500 words Review/Critique
• The main goal of this assignment is to ensure all students gain knowledge in critically evaluating an academic publication in
the health field.
• Clearly identify the research question of the paper: What is the primary question that the paper wants to answer? Are there secondary
question(s)? How do the author(s) answer the question(s)?
• Method to answer research question: What are the main challenges (e.g., empirical, conceptual, in the data, etc) for answering the
research question? How are these challenges addressed in the paper? Explain the statistical/econometric method used in the paper in
your own words so that people familiar with econometric methods but unfamiliar with the current one can understand what is done.
What (critical) assumptions need to be made for the analysis?
• How is the paper studying a question that is relevant for policy and why?
• Cite 1-2 other relevant papers with their methods and approaches to the question. Discuss how this paper fits into the literature (this is
usually written within the paper). Critique the discussions and explanation of results then, using your own discussion and how it may
apply to health policy nowadays, and how the paper could be improved on, i.e. what are the limitations of their methods and findings.
• Write the review with paragraphs, flow from one para to the next, flow the story throughout the review. Use diagrams where useful
but explain then within the text. References are important – but no fixed style, choose your own. High Distinction
85-100%
Distinction
75-84%
Credit
65-74%
Pass
50-64%
Fail
<50
Introduction (10
marks)
The content
presented gives a
thorough and
insightful overview of
the chosen article,
aims clearly stated.
The content presented
gives a comprehensive
overview of the chosen
article.
The content presented
gives a clear overview of
the chosen article.
The content
presented gives a
mostly correct
overview, with some
errors, of the chosen
article.
The content in your
introduction has several
errors.
Accuracy of
content (40
marks)
The content
presented gives a
thorough and
insightful overview of
the article.
The content presented
gives a comprehensive
overview of the article.
The content presented
gives a clear overview of
the article.
The content
presented gives a
correct overview,
with some errors, of
the article.
The content in your
presentation has several
errors.
Methods (10
marks)
Key methods and
ideas are
summarised in a
clear, fluent,
coherent manner.
Key methods are
summarised in a clear
manner with a logical
structure.
Key methods are mainly
clear.
Key methods are not
always clear.
Key methods are not
clear.
Critique of
article (20
marks)
Strengths and
weakness of the
article are
comprehensively
presented, with
detailed evidence
provided.
Strengths and weakness of
the article are presented
clearly and coherently, with
evidence provided.
Strengths and weakness
of the article are
presented with some
evidence provided, but
some points are not
always clear.
Not all relevant
strengths and
weaknesses are
provided. At least one
of each to be
provided.
Strengths and
weaknesses are not
sufficiently provided and
not discussed.
Policy relevance
(10 marks)
Review discusses
relevance to policy,
excellently and
clearly.
Review provides very good
policy relevance.
Review provides good
policy relevance.
Review provides
some policy
relevance.
Review provides no
policy relevance.Presentation (10
marks)
Your script is clearly
well-organised and
well-structured. Your
writing is fluent,
informative, and
engaging. Correct
grammar and spelling
are used throughout,
with no errors.
Your script follows the
structural requirements of
the task. Your writing is
mostly fluent and
informative. Correct
grammar and spelling are
used throughout, with the
occasional minor error.
Your script organises
content reasonably
well, but it could be
better structured in
places. Your writing
flows well in most
places. Mostly
appropriate grammar
and spelling is used
with several minor
errors.
Your script does not
follow the structural
requirements of the
task and has several
errors. Your writing
tends to be
disjointed. Grammar
and spelling are
consistently
incorrect with several
minor and/or major
errors.
Your script does not
follow the structural
requirements of the task
and has several major
errors. Your writing is
disjointed. Grammar
and spelling are
consistently incorrect
with many major errors.
