This rubric is your guide for developing a high-quality research proposal that meets professional standards. You can use this rubric to:
For more information:
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Inclusion of necessary components (5%) | (1) Proposal includes all required sections: cover page, project summary, introduction, methods, expected results, timeline, etc.; (2) Proposal includes most required sections but may be missing minor details; (3) Several key sections are missing or incomplete. |
| 2. Cover page completeness (5%) | (1) Cover page contains all necessary information, such as title, name, affiliation, and project duration ; (2) Cover page is mostly complete but may be missing minor details; (3) Cover page lacks essential information or is incomplete. |
| 3. Title quality (5%) | (1) Title is informative, specific, and accurately reflects the research topic; (2) Title is generally clear but may be too broad or slightly unclear; (3) Title is non-informative, too broad, or fails to convey the research topic effectively. |
| 4. Project summary comprehensiveness (30%) | (1) Project summary is comprehensive, covering background, objectives, methods, outputs, and outcomes (2) Project summary is mostly complete but may lack depth in one or more areas; (3) Project summary is incomplete or fails to cover key aspects adequately. |
| 5. Proposal structure and “diabolo” shape (10%) | (1) Proposal follows a logical “diabolo” structure, moving from general to specific, addressing the general problem, specific problem, literature review, research gaps, research questions/hypotheses, objectives, tasks, methods, expected results, timeline; (2) Proposal structure is generally coherent but may lack smooth transitions between sections; (3) Proposal structure is disorganized, lacking clear connections between sections. |
| 6. Data management plan and FAIR principles (30%) | (1) A clear and detailed data management plan is included, demonstrating a commitment to making data FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable); (2) Data management plan is present but may lack some details on how data will be made FAIR; (3) Data management plan is missing or lacks sufficient detail. |
| 7. Publication-quality figures (10%) | (1) Proposal includes publication-quality figures with proper citation if not original ; (2) Figures are present but may not be of publication quality or lack proper citation; (3) Figures are of low quality, lack citation, or are missing entirely. |
| 8. Use of citation management software (5%) | (1) Citation management software (e.g., Zotero, EndNote) is effectively used to manage references and link citations; (2) Citation management software is used but with some inconsistencies or errors; (3) Citation management software is not used, or references are poorly managed. |
For detail about the introduction section, check the slides of Literature Review Overview lesson, Literature Search lesson, and Writing Your Review lesson
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Background and context (10%) | (1) Provides a well-structured background that clearly sets the context for the research; (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 and research gaps (50%) | (1) Conducts a thorough literature review, identifies key studies, and clearly states a significant research gap using more than 12 high-quality, current sources; (2) Conducts a solid review with 10-12 quality sources, identifying a research gap with some gaps in clarity; (3) Basic review with 5-10 sources, with minimal identification of the research gap. |
| 3. Relevance and currency of sources (10%) | (1) Sources are highly relevant, current, import sources not missing, and published within the last 5 years; (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. Definition of the research problem (10%) | (1) The research problem is narrowly focused, clearly defined, and feasible to develop a method; (2) The research problem is focused but lacks some direction; (3) The research problem is too broad or not clearly defined. |
| 5. Research question/hypothesis and objectives (10%) | (1) 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 clearer connection to the research gap; (3) Research question and objectives are present but lack clarity or a strong connection to the research gap. |
| 6. Feasibility and realism (10%) | (1) The research project is realistic, considering time, resources, and the student’s skills; (2) The research project is mostly realistic but may have some limitations due to time, resources, or skills; (3) The research project is not realistic due to significant limitations. |
For detail about the method section check the slides of the Method Development lesson.
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Clarity and organization (20%) | (1) The method section is well-organized and clearly explains the research design and process; (2) The method is generally clear but may have minor issues in organization or clarity; (3) The method section is poorly organized, making it difficult to understand the research process. |
| 2. Reliability (20%) | (1) Materials, chemicals, procedures, and models chosen are fully suitable and valid for answering research questions; (2) Most materials and procedures are suitable, with minor limitations; (3) Significant gaps in suitability and validity of chosen materials and methods. |
| 3. Appropriateness of data collection methods (20%) | (1) Data collection methods are well-justified, appropriate for the research objectives, and clearly explained; (2) Data collection methods are generally appropriate but may lack thorough justification or clarity; (3) Data collection methods are poorly justified or inappropriate for the research objectives. |
| 4. Validity of data analysis methods (10%) | (1) Data analysis methods are appropriate, valid, and clearly described; (2) Data analysis methods are mostly appropriate but may lack full clarity or justification; (3) Data analysis methods are inappropriate or poorly explained. |
| 5. Reproducibility (20%) | (1) Method is detailed enough for researchers to follow step-by-step and replicate the study; (2) Method is mostly clear, but some steps or details may be ambiguous or missing; (3) Method lacks sufficient detail for reproducibility. |
| 6. Ethical considerations (10%) | (1) Ethical considerations are thoroughly addressed, with clear strategies for minimizing risks and ensuring ethical research conduct; (2) Ethical considerations are addressed but may lack detail or completeness; (3) Ethical considerations are inadequately addressed or overlooked. |
For detail about the expected results section, check the slides of the Expected Results and Timeline lesson and the sample proposal.
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Anticipated findings (10%) | (1) Anticipated findings are specific and directly respond to the research questions, literature review, and pilot results if available, (2) Anticipated findings are defined but may lack specificity, accuracy, or evidence (3) Anticipated findings are vague, lack clarity, or are not clearly connected to the research questions. |
| 2. Deliverables (25%) | (1) Deliverables are specific, accurate, tangible, and well-aligned with the research objectives, with clear success criteria provided; (2) Deliverables are defined but may lack specificity, accuracy, or measurable success criteria; (3) Deliverables are vague, lack clarity, or are not clearly connected to the research objectives. |
| 3. Outputs (20%) | (1) Outputs are clearly described, directly resulting from the deliverables, and provide immediate and measurable results; (2) Outputs are identified but may lack clarity or measurable details; (3) Outputs are vague or weakly connected to the deliverables or research objectives. |
| 4. Outcomes (10%) | (1) Outcomes are well-articulated, measurable, and show clear short-term benefits directly arising from the outputs; (2) Outcomes are mentioned but lack depth or measurability; (3) Outcomes are vague or not clearly related to the deliverables or outputs. |
| 5. Impacts (10%) | (1) Impacts are clearly defined, demonstrating long-term significance to the field or society and strongly justified; (2) Impacts are identified but lack sufficient detail or justification; (3) Impacts are vague, underdeveloped, or weakly related to the research objectives. |
| 6. Feasibility (25%) | (1) Deliverables, outputs, outcomes, and impacts are realistic, achievable, and well-justified within the project’s scope and timeline; (2) Deliverables, outputs, outcomes, and impacts are generally realistic but face minor feasibility challenges; (3) Deliverables, outputs, outcomes, and impacts are unclear, overly ambitious, not specific, or not feasible given the project’s constraints. |
For detail about the timeline section, check the slides of the Expected Results and Timeline lesson and the sample proposal.
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| 1. Research schedule and milestones (50%) | (1) The timeline with gantt chart is detailed, with clear milestones that align with the research objectives and demonstrate a logical progression of tasks; (2) The timeline with gantt chart includes milestones but may lack detail or clear alignment with the research objectives; (3) The timeline without gantt chart is vague, with unclear milestones that do not clearly support the research objectives. |
| 2. Realistic deadlines and deliverables (20%) | (1) Deadlines are realistic, well-distributed throughout the project, and clearly linked to specific deliverables; (2) Deadlines are generally realistic but may be unevenly distributed or lack clear connection to deliverables; (3) Deadlines are unrealistic, poorly distributed, or not clearly tied to deliverables. |
| 3. Contingency plan (30%) | (1) The contingency plan is well-developed, addressing potential challenges with specific strategies to ensure project completion as shown in the slides of the Expected Results and Timeline lesson and the sample proposal; (2) The contingency plan is present but may be vague or lack specific strategies; (3) The contingency plan is absent or fails to address potential challenges effectively. |
For detail check the active link for each criterion if available
| 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 proposal difficult to follow. |
| 8. Flow of proposal without need for headings (10%) | (1) The proposal 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 proposal effectively ties together information from all sources; (2) Information is mostly integrated but may lack coherence in some areas; (3) The proposal 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. |
| Grade | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Exceptional: 95-100% | The proposal is exceptionally coherent, with all sections working together seamlessly to present a strong, persuasive argument that effectively conveys the significance and potential of the research. |
| Very good: 90-94% | The proposal is highly coherent and persuasive, with only minor issues that do not significantly detract from the strength of the argument or the clarity of the research’s potential contributions. |
| Good: 85-89% | The proposal is generally coherent and persuasive, though some issues slightly weaken the overall argument or clarity. |
| Adequate: 75-84% | The proposal has notable coherence and persuasiveness issues, with several sections that do not integrate well, reducing the strength of the argument. |
| Needs improvement: Below 75% | The proposal lacks coherence, with sections that fail to work together, leading to a weak and unconvincing argument about the research’s significance and potential contributions. |
This section is for your information only and not for grading. Review your funding agency’s specific criteria to ensure your proposal aligns with their standards. This is an example of how your proposal might be evaluated according to the National Science Foundation (NSF) review criteria.
| Criterion | Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Intellectual merit | (1) The proposal demonstrates outstanding intellectual merit, with innovative ideas, strong theoretical foundations, and a clear research plan that advances knowledge; (2) The proposal shows solid intellectual merit, with well-developed ideas and a clear research plan, though it may lack some innovation; (3) The proposal demonstrates limited intellectual merit, with gaps in theory, research plan, or innovation. |
| Broader impacts | (1) The proposal clearly articulates significant broader impacts, including societal benefits, educational outreach, and contributions to diversity; (2) The proposal includes broader impacts, but they may be less well-developed or lack clear implementation plans; (3) The proposal has minimal or unclear broader impacts, with little consideration for societal or educational benefits. |
| Overall quality | (1) The proposal is exceptional, integrating intellectual merit and broader impacts into a cohesive and compelling document that is well-aligned with NSF priorities; (2) The proposal is strong overall but may have minor weaknesses in either intellectual merit or broader impacts; (3) The proposal is weak overall, with significant deficiencies in intellectual merit, broader impacts, or overall coherence. |
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.