iRubric: Scientific Literature Research rubric

Topic of the paper is clearly defined. Research focus has been narrowed by specific criteria. The state-of-the-art may be clearly given within the paper's length.

Topic is specific enough that the student can give proper treatment within the given length. Student may still need to narrow the focus by applying specific criteria to eliminate unnecessary information.

Student has narrowed the topic somewhat. Further research may lead to a better topic selection.

Topic is very general and has no focus. Scope of the paper is so broad it is impossible to give proper treatment within the given length.

Ideas are arranged logically to support the purpose of the paper. Paragraphs contain one topic sentence, and supporting sentences clearly flow from one to the other. Paragraphs also are clearly linked to each other. The reader can easily follow the paper.

Writing is logically organized to support the central purpose. Paragraphs contain only one main idea, with each paragraph supporting the others. There are occasional lapses in organization, but not enough to distract the reader.

In general, writing is logically organized. Occasionally paragraphs contain more than one main idea or contain sentences unrelated to the main idea. Some support and flow among paragraphs. Reader has a fairly clear idea of what the writer intends.

Writing is not logically organized. Paragraphs lack topic sentences and may contain more than one major idea. Paragraphs and sentences do not support each other.

Writing is free or almost free of errors.

There are occasional errors, but they are not too distracting and do not obscure the meaning of the sentence.

Paper has many distracting errors. Perhaps some editing did occur.

There are so many errors the meaning is obscured. Student obviously did not proof read the paper at all.

References are primarily peer-reviewed professional journals or other approved sources. Reader is confident that information and ideas can be trusted.

Majority of the references cited are from peer-reviewed sources. Accuracy of some sources may not be verifiable but are generally regarded as legitimate. Minimal use of Wikipedia.

Most of the references are from sources that are not peer-reviewed. Accuracy of the material is unable to be substantiated.

Virtually no professionally reliable sources. Random websites with no qualifications are references. The Wikipedia appeared to be the only source.