DPST1051-BLSC1342 LITERATURE REVIEW RUBRIC
Criteria Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not completed
Part One: Mini literature review 10 marks
Introduce the
topic
- Title clearly outlines
the topic of the
review.
- The introduction
provides a well- defined background
and context, offering
a comprehensive
overview. It provides
a clear plan of how
the literature review is
structured.
2.0
- The title effectively
outlines the review's
topic, though with
minor room for
improvement.
- The introduction
provides a good
background and
context, offering a
comprehensive
overview. It provides a
clear plan of how the
literature review is
structured.
1.5
- The title may not
outline the topic area
or be too general.
- The introduction
provides an
adequate
background and
context but lacks
detail and clarity.
1.0
- The title does not
provide a clear outline
of the review topic or is
incomplete.
- The introduction lacks
a well-defined
background and
context, and the
overview is not
comprehensive.
0.5
- No attempt made to
outline the review's
topic in the title (eg.
“Literature review”).
- The introduction is
missing or
significantly
incomplete, providing
no background,
context, or plan of
organisation.
0
Content - Articulates a
concise summary of
essential
information
pertaining to the
chosen topic,
demonstrating clear
organisation and
structure.
- Integrates the
literature in a logical
manner to construct
a well-organised
and coherent
review of the topic
area.
2.0
- Constructs a well- organised summary of
essential information
related to the chosen
topic, showcasing
good organisation and
structure.
- Integrates the
literature logically to
build a review of the
topic area that is
generally well- structured and
coherent.
1.5
- Develops an
adequately structured
summary of key
information concerning
the chosen topic, with
acceptable
organisation.
- Incorporates the
literature in a
satisfactory manner to
form a review that is
reasonably organised
and coherent.
1.0
- Presents a summary of
key information related
to the chosen topic with
notable gaps or lack of
clarity, lacking clear
organisation and
structure.
- Integration of the
literature is not logical,
resulting in a review that
lacks coherence and
effective organisation,
which impacts on
readability.
0.5
- Does not articulate a
summary of key
information related to the
chosen topic, and the
construction of a review
is either absent or
significantly incomplete.
0
Conclusion - The conclusion
provides a clear,
logical summary of
the primary
takeaways and
insights / future
directions extracted
from the review.
1.0
- The conclusion
presents a good
summary of the
primary takeaways and
insights obtained from
the review.
0.75
- The conclusion gives
an adequate summary
of the key takeaways
and insights from the
review.
0.5
- The conclusion's
summary of key
takeaways and insights
lacks clarity or
completeness.
0.25
- The conclusion is either
missing or significantly
incomplete.
0
Readability - The writing is clear,
well-structured and
easy to read.
- Written at a level
suitable for a
Molecules, Cells and
Genes audience.
The content is
effectively tailored to
their level of
understanding.
2.0
- Writing is generally
clear, but unnecessary
words/phrases are
occasionally used that
make it difficult to
read.
- Written at a level
suitable for a
Molecules, Cells and
Genes audience. The
content is effectively
tailored to their level
of understanding.
1.5
- Writing is not clear
with re-reading
necessary for full
comprehension.
- Written at a level
suitable for a
Molecules, Cells and
Genes audience. The
content is tailored to
their level of
understanding to
some extent.
1.0
- The writing lacks clarity
and logical structure,
impacting on readability.
- The content is not
effectively tailored to a
Molecules, Cells and
Genes audience.
0.5
- No attempt is made to
meet the requirements
of clear writing,
structured presentation
for a Molecules, Cells
and Genes audience.
0
References - Includes the 3 required
peer reviewed journal
articles (2 primary
articles and 1 review
article).
- In text citations
formatted correctly,
using Harvard style.
- Reference list
formatted correctly, in
Harvard style.
3.0
- Includes the 3 required
journal articles (2
primary articles and 1
review article).
- Majority of in-text
citations formatted
correctly using Harvard
style.
- Majority of reference
list formatted
correctly in Harvard
style.
2.0
- Includes the 2 required
journal articles (2
primary articles and 1
review article).
- Majority of in-text
citations formatted
correctly using Harvard
style.
- Majority of reference
list formatted correctly
in Harvard style.
1.0
- Includes the 2 required
journal articles (2 primary
articles and 1 review
article).
- Many in-text citations
formatted incorrectly/ not
in Harvard style.
- Many references in
reference list formatted
incorrectly/ not in
Harvard style.
0.5
- No journal articles are
presented or referenced.
0
Criteria Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Not completed
Part Two: Research process 15 marks
Relation to
course themes
- Clearly states which
topic was chosen
and if they have
refined the scope
and focus.
- Clearly states how
the topic choice
aligns with and
contributes to the
course theme/s.
2.0
- Clearly states which
topic was chosen and if
they have refined the
scope and focus.
- Clearly states how the
topic choice aligns with
and contributes to the
course theme/s, but
with minor gaps in
explanation.
1.5
- States which topic was
chosen and if they
have refined the scope
and focus.
- Provides a vague or
partial connection
between the topic
choice and course
theme/s.
1.0
- Fails to clearly state the
chosen topic or how the
scope and focus have
been refined, or the
statements made are
inaccurate or unclear.
- Provides a vague or
partial connection
between the topic choice
and course theme/s.
0.5
- No attempt was made to
connect the refined topic
to course theme/s.
0
Article selection
and information
- Demonstrates a
selection of three
peer reviewed
scientific articles,
including two
primary articles and
a review.
- Clearly and
accurately identify
each article as
either a primary
research article or a
review article.
- Clearly outlines the
details for each article
including the journal
and publication year.
3.0
- Demonstrates a
selection of three
scientific articles,
including two primary
articles and a review.
- States which articles
are primary research
articles, and which is
the review article.
- Outlines the details for
each article including
the journal and
publication year.
2.0
- Shows a satisfactory
selection of three
scientific articles
related to the topic
but does not include
the required two
primary articles and a
review.
- Vaguely infers which
articles are primary
research articles and
which is the review
article.
- Includes two primary
articles and one
review article is
evident but lacks
clear details for each
1.0
- Does not include a
selection of three
scientific articles related
to the topic.
- Fails to clearly state
which articles are
primary research articles
and which is the review
article, or the statements
made are incorrect or
unclear.
- One or more articles lack
necessary details.
0.5
- No attempt was made
to include the required
articles, any articles
included are not
relevant and no
required details for
present articles are
provided.
- No details of the articles
were provided.
0
Choice of
articles
- Explains the
relevance of each
article to the topic,
including factors like
the significance of the
research, the clarity of
the study, or its
applicability to the
topic.
2.0
- Provides a clear
explanation of the
relevance of each
article but lacks the
detail to communicate
why one article was
selected over another.
1.5
- Offers a basic
explanation for the
choice of articles, but
lacks information on
why each specific
article was chosen
over others
1.0
- The explanation for
article selection is
minimal or unclear, it
cannot be determined
why the articles were
chosen over others.
0.5
- No explanation is
provided for the
selection of articles.
0
Primary and
Secondary
literature
- Clearly and accurately
describes the
differences between
primary and
secondary articles
- Explains how the
distinction between
primary and
secondary articles
was confirmed,
including the specific
criteria or features
used to identify each
type
4.0
- Describes the
differences between
primary and secondary
articles, with slight
inaccuracies or
omissions.
- Provides a generally
accurate explanation
of how article types
were confirmed, with
some minor errors.
3.0
- Provides a basic
description of primary
and secondary
literature, but with
gaps in understanding
or clarity
- Attempts to explain
how article types were
confirmed, but the
explanation is unclear
or lacks detail.
2.0
- Description of primary
and secondary literature
is incomplete or
incorrect.
- Fails to explain or
incorrectly explains how
article types were
confirmed.
1.0
- No attempt is made to
describe the differences
between primary and
secondary literature or
to confirm the correct
identification of articles
0
Documentation
process
- Describes the process
of locating three peer
reviewed scientific
articles in a concise
manner that also
allows the search to
be replicated. This
may include the
databases used, key
words, phrases,
limitations, filters, and
how they confirmed
their articles were
peer reviewed.
4.0
- Describes the process
in a manner that
allows the search to
be replicated, this may
include the databases
used, key words,
phrases and how they
confirmed their articles
were peer reviewed.
3.0
- Provides basic
documentation of the
process with some
gaps in clarity or
detail.
2.0
- Documents the process
of finding and choosing
one of the required
articles.
1.0
- No attempt made to
document the process
of finding and
choosing the required
articles.
- Marker could not
replicate the search
and find the articles.
0
51作业君版权所有
