This rubric is your guide for developing a high-quality report that meets professional standards including standards of technical writing. You can use this rubric to:
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Cover page completeness (35%) | (1) Plain cover page containing author’s name, affiliation, email. (2) Cover page includes most required elements but has unnecessary information (e.g., logos). (3) Cover page lacks essential information (e.g., name, affiliation, or email) or is incomplete. |
| 2. Title quality (65%) | (1) Title is concise, precise, and informative. It reflects the aim and scope of the research, avoids jargon or abbreviations, and uses specific terms. (2) Title is generally clear but slightly broad or unclear in reflecting the research focus. (3) Title is non-informative, overly broad, or fails to describe the research. Uses jargon, abbreviations, or unnecessary words. |
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Key Components (35%) | (1) Abstract covers all key components: background, aim or problem statement, methods, results, and conclusions, with a significance statement (so what statement) at the end. (2) Abstract is mostly complete but lacks depth in one or more components, such as aim, results, or significance. (3) Abstract is incomplete, disorganized, or missing key components such as methods or significance. |
| 2. Effectiveness (35%) | (1) Abstract is concise, cohesive, accurate, well-structured, and can stand alone as a summary of the work. (2) Abstract is generally clear and structured but may lack some cohesion, minor inaccuracies, or excessive jargon. (3) Abstract is unclear, verbose, or disjointed, and cannot effectively summarize the work on its own. |
| 3. Word Count (30%) | (1) Abstract is no longer than 250 words. (2) Abstract exceeds word limits by up to 10%. (3) Abstract significantly exceeds the required word limit (more than 10% deviation). |
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Background and context (10%) | (1) Provides a well-structured background that clearly sets the context for the research, indicating the field of work and its importance; (2) Provides a solid background with some gaps in detail or clarity; (3) Background is minimal or unclear, missing important contextual information. |
| 2. Literature review (50%) | (1) A thorough literature review using evidence-based argumentation, identifies key studies, and either clearly states a research gap or highlights unresolved questions or practical applications using more than 12 high-quality, current sources; (2) Conducts a solid review with 10–12 quality sources, uses evidence-based arguments but may occasionally lack clarity or specificity, with minor overstatements or generalizations; (3) Basic review with 5–10 sources, relies on generalizations or weak evidence, and minimally identifies a research gap, unresolved questions, or practical applications. |
| 3. Relevance and currency of sources (10%) | (1) Sources are highly relevant, current, with no important sources missing; (2) Most sources are relevant and current, with a few slightly older studies included; (3) Some sources are outdated or less relevant to the research topic. |
| 4. Research problem (10%) | (1) The research problem is narrowly focused, clearly defined, and feasible to address using appropriate methods; (2) The research problem is focused but lacks some direction; (3) The research problem is too broad or not clearly defined. |
| 5. Research question (10%) | (1) Research question or hypothesis clearly linked to the research gap with specific, achievable objectives and tasks; (2) Research question and objectives are clear but may need further refinement or stronger connection to the research gap; (3) Research question and objectives are present but lack clarity or a strong connection to the research gap. |
| 6. Novelty statement (10%)* | (1) Accurately outlines the purpose of the research, announces the present study, and explains its novelty or significance in a way that is supported by the literature review; (2) Outlines the purpose and significance but may lack clarity or sufficient support from the literature; (3) The purpose and significance are unclear, overstated, or unsupported by the literature. |
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Clarity and organization (20%) | (1) The method section is well-organized, flows logically, and clearly explains the research design and process; (2) The method is generally clear but has minor organizational issues; (3) The method section is poorly organized, making the research process difficult to follow. |
| 2. Method details and justification (20%) | (1) Provides detailed descriptions of procedures, tools, and mrthods (e.g., materials, fieldwork, surveys, interviews, or data analysis) with clear justification for their use; (2) Provides most details but lacks some specificity or justification for chosen procedures or tools; (3) Significant gaps in detail or justification for the methodologies used. |
| 3. Appropriateness of data collection methods (10%) | (1) Data collection methods are well-justified, appropriate for the objectives, and clearly explained; (2) Methods are generally appropriate but lack thorough justification or clarity; (3) Data collection methods are poorly justified or inappropriate for the objectives. |
| 4. Validity of data analysis methods (20%) | (1) Data analysis methods are appropriate, valid, and clearly described, with assumptions and biases considered; (2) Methods are mostly appropriate but may lack full clarity or justification; (3) Analysis methods are inappropriate or poorly explained, failing to consider key assumptions or biases. |
| 5. Statistical considerations (10%) | (1) Statistical approaches are justified with proper explanation; (2) Statistical considerations are addressed but may lack depth or completeness; (3) Statistical considerations are inadequately addressed or overlooked. |
| 6. Reproducibility (20%) | (1) Methods are described with sufficient detail for independent researchers to replicate the study; (2) Methods are mostly clear, but some steps or details may be ambiguous or missing; (3) Methods lack sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. |
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Deliverables (40%) | (1) Most deliverables outlined in the approved proposal are presented, with results logically organized and clearly linked to the research objectives; minor deviations are explained; (2) Some deliverables are missing or deviate from the proposal, but results are still reasonably organized and connected to the objectives; (3) Many deliverables are missing or poorly aligned with the research objectives, and results lack clear organization or justification for deviations. |
| 2. Presentation of results (20%) | (1) Results are presented clearly and concisely, supported by evidence, and arranged in a logical order to directly address the research questions; (2) Results are mostly clear and relevant but may lack conciseness or logical organization; (3) Results are unclear, incomplete, or poorly connected to the research questions. |
| 3. Use of figures and tables (20%) | (1) Figures and tables are publication quality and appropriately used to present representative data, with clear captions and proper formatting; all figures/tables are cited in the text; (2) Figures and tables are mostly clear but may lack detail, proper formatting, or adequate captions; (3) Figures and tables are unclear, poorly formatted, or not included where needed. |
| 4. Evidence-based reporting (10%) | (1) Results are factual, supported by evidence, and avoid redundancy; results are presented without interpreting or evaluating them; (2) Results are factual but may contain some redundancy or minor interpretation; (3) Results lack evidence, are overly interpretive, or contain significant redundancy. |
| 5. Quality of statistical reporting (10%) | (1) Statistical methods are appropriately applied, results are clearly reported (e.g., p-values, confidence intervals), and unnecessary details are omitted; (2) Statistical methods are mostly appropriate but may lack some clarity or conciseness; (3) Statistical methods are poorly reported, inappropriate, or missing entirely. |
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Interpretation of results (30%) | (1) Clearly interprets and explains the results, discussing whether they were expected or unexpected, and compares them to previous work as applicable with well-supported arguments; (2) Provides reasonable interpretations of results but lacks depth in discussing unexpected findings or connections to prior work; (3) Interpretations are unclear, incomplete, or lack meaningful comparison to previous work. |
| 2. Theoretical or practical implications (10%) | (1) Discusses both theoretical and/or practical implications of the findings with clear and logical reasoning; (2) Addresses implications but may lack clarity, detail, or balanced discussion; (3) Does not adequately discuss the implications or provides weak arguments without sufficient evidence. |
| 3. Logical organization and relevance (10%) | (1) Discussion is logically organized, avoids unnecessary repetition, and focuses on interpreting the results; all discussion points are relevant to the results presented; (2) Discussion is mostly logical but may include minor repetition or tangential points; (3) Discussion lacks logical flow, includes repetition or unrelated content, or presents results not supported by data. |
| 4. Study limitations (15%) | (1) Thoroughly identifies limitations and potential shortcomings of the study, discussing alternate explanations for the results; (2) Mentions limitations and alternate explanations but lacks detail or depth; (3) Fails to address limitations or alternate explanations, or the discussion is superficial. |
| 5. Conclusions and significance (30%) | (1) Conclusions are concise, directly tied to evidence from the results, and emphasize the significance of findings while addressing all research questions; conclusions remain within the scope of the methods and data limitations; (2) Conclusions are generally clear but may lack specificity, completeness, or strong emphasis on significance; minor claims may not be fully supported by evidence or consider data/method limitations; (3) Conclusions are vague, unsupported by evidence, fail to address research questions, or make claims that exceed what the results, methods, or data limitations justify. |
| 6. Future Perspectives (5%) | (1) Provides thoughtful and realistic suggestions for future research, connecting them to the study’s findings and limitations; (2) Suggests future research but lacks detail or connection to the findings; (3) Fails to provide meaningful suggestions for future work. |
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Data availability statement (20%) | (1) Clearly describes where and how the data supporting the findings can be accessed, or provides a valid explanation for data unavailability; (2) Provides a data availability statement but lacks detail or clarity; (3) Data availability statement is missing or unclear. |
| 2. Ethics statement (20%) | (1) Thoroughly addresses ethical considerations, including approvals, consent, and adherence to ethical guidelines, if applicable; (2) Mentions ethical considerations but lacks detail or completeness; (3) Ethics statement is missing or fails to address key ethical aspects. |
| 3. Acknowledgments (40%) | (1) Properly acknowledges all contributors not included as authors and their specific contributions (e.g., technical support, data analysis guidance, manuscript reviewing, assistance with literature review or data collection); (2) Acknowledgments are present but may lack specificity in describing contributions (e.g., “Thanks to John Doe” without specifying their role or contribution); (3) Acknowledgments are missing or fail to appropriately credit contributors (e.g., leaving out individuals who provided significant support or using vague terms like “helpful discussions”). |
| 4. AI assistance statement (5%) | (1) Clearly discloses any use of AI tools ensuring transparency (see sample paper for an example); if AI is not used then clearly state this in this section (2) AI use is mentioned but lacks sufficient detail or clarity; (3) AI use statement is missing or unclear when applicable. |
| 5. Funding (5%) | (1) Clearly identifies all funding sources, grant numbers, and sponsors relevant to the study; (2) Funding information is present but incomplete or lacks specificity; (3) Funding information is missing or insufficiently detailed. |
| 6. References (5%) | (1) References are complete, formatted correctly, and adhere to the required AGU citation style; (2) References are mostly complete but may have minor formatting or consistency issues; (3) References are incomplete, poorly formatted, or inconsistent with the required style. |
| 7. Appendix, if needed (5%) | (1) Appendix is included when appropriate and cited in the maintext, providing well-organized supplementary material relevant to the study; (2) Appendix is included but lacks organization, relevance, or citation in the main text; (3) Appendix is missing when needed or is poorly organized and irrelevant. |
For detail check the active link for each criterion if availabl
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Effective use of topic sentences (10%) | (1) Topic sentences effectively introduce the main ideas of each paragraph; (2) Topic sentences are present but may sometimes lack clarity or focus; (3) Topic sentences are unclear, absent, or fail to introduce the main idea. |
| 2. Support with evidence statements (10%) | (1) Each paragraph includes at least two clear evidence statements that support the main idea; (2) Evidence statements are present but may lack relevance or clarity; (3) Evidence statements are weak, unclear, or insufficient in number. |
| 3. Clear transitions between evidence statements (10%) | (1) Transitions between evidence statements are smooth and clearly articulated; (2) Transitions are present but may lack fluidity or coherence; (3) Transitions are unclear or disjointed, leading to a fragmented flow. |
| 4. Logical order of evidence statements (10%) | (1) Evidence statements follow a logical and effective sequence; (2) The order of evidence statements is mostly logical but may occasionally seem disjointed; (3) Evidence statements are poorly ordered, leading to confusion. |
| 5. Effective use of concluding sentences (10%) | (1) Concluding sentences effectively summarize the main ideas of paragraphs; (2) Concluding sentences are present but may not fully encapsulate the paragraph’s main idea; (3) Concluding sentences are missing or ineffective. |
| 6. Transition to the next paragraph (10%) | (1) Concluding sentences transition smoothly to the next paragraph; (2) Transitions are present but may lack fluidity; (3) Transitions are weak, abrupt, or missing, leading to a choppy flow between paragraphs. |
| 7. Logical order of paragraphs (10%) | (1) Paragraphs are organized in a logical and coherent manner; (2) Paragraphs are mostly well-ordered, but some may disrupt the overall flow; (3) Paragraphs are poorly ordered, making the difficult to follow. |
| 8. Flow of report without need for headings (10%) | (1) The report flows smoothly from one issue to the next without relying on headings; (2) The flow is mostly smooth, but some sections may rely on headings to maintain coherence; (3) The flow is disjointed and requires headings to provide structure. |
| 9. Understanding relationships among sources (10%) | (1) Writing demonstrates a strong understanding of the relationships among materials from different sources; (2) Relationships among sources are mostly understood but may be underdeveloped in some areas; (3) The understanding of relationships among sources is weak or lacking. |
| 10. Integration of information from sources (10%) | (1) The report effectively ties together information from all sources; (2) Information is mostly integrated but may lack coherence in some areas; (3) The report fails to effectively integrate information from different sources. |
For detail check the active link for each criterion if available
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Depth of discussion and elaboration (30%) | (1) Discussion is consistently in-depth, thoroughly exploring each topic; (2) Discussion is mostly in-depth but may lack detail in certain areas; (3) Content is either missing important details, excessively runs-on, or provides only a cursory discussion. |
| 2. Clarity of expression (20%) | (1) Writing is clear, precise, and easy to understand; (2) Writing is generally clear but may include some ambiguous or confusing sentences; (3) Writing is unclear, making it difficult to follow the argument or ideas. |
| 3. Accuracy and completeness of information (10%) | (1) Information is accurate, complete, and well-supported by evidence; (2) Information is mostly accurate but may contain minor inaccuracies or incomplete details; (3) Information is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading. |
| 4. Logical coherence of ideas (10%) | (1) Ideas are logically connected and flow naturally from one to the next; (2) Ideas are mostly coherent but may occasionally lack a clear connection; (3) Ideas are disjointed or poorly connected, leading to confusion. |
| 5. Presence of nonsensical or misleading sentences (10%) | (1) No sentences that are nonsensical or misleading; all information is clear and well-articulated; (2) Few sentences are unclear or poorly worded, but the overall meaning is understandable; (3) Multiple sentences are nonsensical, inaccurate, or misleading, significantly affecting comprehension. |
| 6. Rigor in argumentation (10%) | (1) Arguments are well-structured, rigorous, and supported by solid evidence; (2) Arguments are mostly sound but may lack sufficient evidence or rigor in some areas; (3) Arguments are weak, poorly structured, or lack sufficient support. |
| 7. Engagement with relevant literature (10%) | (1) Writing engages deeply with relevant literature, integrating sources effectively; (2) Engagement with literature is present but may lack depth or integration; (3) Engagement with literature is superficial or largely absent. |
For detail check the active link for each criterion if available
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Proper citation (20%) | (1) All sources are cited correctly; (2) Most sources are cited, with minor omissions; (3) Noticeable gaps in citation. |
| 2. Paraphrasing and quoting (10%) | (1) Predominantly paraphrases with selective quoting; (2) Mix of paraphrasing and quoting, with some over-reliance on quotes; (3) Overuse of direct quotes, lacking paraphrasing. |
| 3. Use of secondary sources (10%) | (1) Secondary sources are avoided, with direct citations from the original sources; (2) Some use of secondary sources, but primarily cites original works; (3) Heavy reliance on secondary sources instead of original references. |
| 4. Citation style adherence (20%) | (1) Citations follow AGU style accurately; (2) Minor errors in citation style; (3) Frequent errors in citation style. |
| 5. Completeness of citation list (20%) | (1) No sources are missing from the reference list; (2) Few sources are missing; (3) Several sources are missing. |
| 6. Accuracy of citations (20%) | (1) All citations are complete and accurate; (2) Minor inaccuracies in citations; (3) Noticeable inaccuracies or incomplete citations. |
For detail check the active link for each criterion if available
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Spelling (10%) | (1) Minimal or no spelling mistakes; (2) Few spelling mistakes; (3) Noticeable spelling mistakes. |
| 2. Grammar (10%) | (1) Grammar is correct throughout; (2) Minor grammar mistakes present; (3) Several grammar mistakes. |
| 3. Sentence Clarity (10%) | (1) Sentences are clear and unambiguous; (2) Some sentences are slightly unclear or ambiguous; (3) Many sentences are unclear or ambiguous. |
| 4. Sentence length (10%) | (1) Sentences are succinct and well-structured; (2) Occasional long sentences; (3) Frequent long or convoluted sentences. |
| 5. Careless mistakes (10%) | (1) No careless mistakes; (2) Few careless mistakes (e.g., using acronyms without defining them); (3) Noticeable careless mistakes. |
| 6. Use of conjunctions (10%) | (1) Proper use of conjunctions (e.g., “Alternatively,” “In addition”); (2) Mostly correct use, with occasional misuse (e.g., “and,” “but”); (3) Frequent misuse of conjunctions. |
| 7. Succinctness (10%) | (1) Writing is concise, with each word adding value; (2) Writing is mostly concise, with occasional redundancy; (3) Writing is often wordy or lacks conciseness. |
| 8. Tense consistency (10%) | (1) Tenses are used correctly according to context (e.g., present simple for general facts, past simple for completed actions); (2) Minor tense inconsistencies; (3) Frequent tense errors. |
| 9. Academic writing style (20%) | (1) Writing is formal, precise, and well-supported by factual evidence; (2) Mostly formal and precise, with occasional lapses; (3) Writing is somewhat informal or imprecise. |
This rubric was developed with the assistance from ChatGPT-4o, which helped to aligne the provided rubric with established guidelines for academic writing. It offered specific suggestions for each section of the rubric, including detailed evaluations for clarity, and relevance. Also, AI ensured that the language is concise and aligned with students’ expectations.
The rubric is dynamic and may be updated as the instructor grades your work. Any updates will be minor adjustments aimed at fine-tuning the criteria, always with your best interest in mind. These adjustments are not meant to introduce major changes but to enhance clarity, rigor, and fairness in evaluation.