ECON7350 – Research Project Marking Rubric
Criteria Excellent (81%-100%) Good (65%-80%) Fair (45%-64%) Poor (30%-44%) Fail (0%-29%)
Clarity and
Structure of Report
(20%)
• The report is clearly
well-organised and
well-structured in a
coherent and concise
form.
• Correct grammar and
spelling are used
throughout, with no
errors.
• Concepts are precisely,
concisely and
accurately defined.
• In-text referencing and
the reference list are
extensive and accurate.
• The report follows the
structural requirements
of the task.
• Correct grammar and
spelling are used
throughout, with the
occasional minor error.
• Concepts are precisely
and accurately, or
concisely and
accurately defined.
• In-text referencing and
the reference list are
consistent with only a
few minor errors.

• The report organises
content reasonably
well, but it could be
better structured in
places.
• Mostly appropriate
grammar and spelling is
used with several minor
errors.
• Concepts are accurately
defined.
• The reference list is
mostly accurate and
usually aligns with the
in-text referencing.
• The report does not
follow the structural
requirements of the
task and has several
errors.
• Grammar and spelling
are consistently
incorrect with several
minor and/or major
errors.
• Concepts are suitably
defined with only a few
errors and little
irrelevant or redundant
description.
• The reference list does
not align sufficiently
with the in-text
referencing.
• The report does not
follow the structural
requirements of the
task and has several
major errors.
• Grammar and spelling
are consistently
incorrect with many
major errors.
• There are a several
errors in the concept
definitions or the
definitions are too
broad to be useful.
• The reference list is
totally inadequate
and/or does not
accurately reflect
sources used to
complete the task.


2/3 | P a g e

Motivation and
practical purpose
(20%)
• Gives a clear and
insightful articulation
of the rationale for the
inferential exercise
undertaken in the
question.
• Gives clear, correct,
excellent and
convincing examples of
how the model,
outputs and inferences
are useful for policy.
• Clearly demonstrates
the importance of the
exercise for policy.

• Gives a clear
articulation of the
rationale for the
inferential exercise
undertaken in the
question.
• Gives clear and correct
examples of how the
model, outputs and
inferences are useful
for policy.
• Demonstrates the
importance of the
exercise for policy.
• Gives a mostly sound
articulation of the
rationale for the
inferential exercise
undertaken in the
question.
• Gives mostly sound
examples of how the
model, outputs and
inferences are useful
for policy.
• Gives some explanation
for the importance of
the exercise for policy.
• Articulates an unclear
rationale for the
inferential exercise
undertaken in the
question.
• Gives partially correct
examples of how the
model, outputs and
inferences are
potentially useful for
policy.
• Gives some examples of
policy uses for this
empirical exercise
although the
connection to policy is
unclear
• Articulates a poor
rationale for the
inferential exercise
undertaken in the
question.
• Gives weak or not
relevant examples of
how the model,
outputs and inferences
are potentially useful
for policy.
• Refers to policy uses for
this empirical exercise
without demonstrating
their relevance.


3/3 | P a g e

Model Identification
and Application
(40%)
• The inferential process
used to identify the
model(s) used is
coherent and
accurately applied.
• The rationale for the
model selection is well
articulated and sound.
• Underlying
assumptions are
clearly, completely, and
concisely stated.
• The inferential
framework (including
models and tests) is
correctly applied.
• Sound and complete
conclusions are drawn.

• The inferential process
used to identify the
model(s) used is mostly
coherent and mostly
correctly applied.
• The rationale for the
model selection is well
articulated and sound.
• Underlying assumptions
are clearly and
completely, or clearly
and concisely, or
completely and
concisely stated.
• The inferential
framework (including
models and tests) is
well applied.
• A range of sound
conclusions are drawn.
• The inferential process
used to identify the
model(s) used is mostly
coherent or mostly
correctly applied.
• The rationale for the
model selection is not
well articulated, or
unsound or incomplete.
• Underlying assumptions
are clearly, but not
completely or not
concisely stated.
• The inferential
framework (including
models and tests) is
mostly well applied
with few errors.
• Reasonable conclusions
are drawn.

• The inferential process
used to identify the
model(s) used is in part
correctly applied.
• The rationale for the
model selection is not
articulated or not
sound; or both.
• Underlying assumptions
are stated although
they are unclear.
• Parts of the inferential
framework (including
models and tests) are
missing or not correctly
applied.
• Conclusions are drawn
that are mostly correct.

• The inferential process
used to identify the
model(s) used either
flawed or missing
important components
or both. Or it is mostly
not correctly applied.
• Either no, or a poor
rationale for the model
selection is given.
• Underlying assumptions
are not or incompletely
stated.
• The inferential
framework (including
models and tests) is
poorly applied.
• No or incorrect
conclusions are drawn.

Interpretation and
Inference (20%)
• The inferences and
interpretations of the
results of the exercise
are correct, complete
and logical.
• There is a clear and
strong link between the
inferences or
interpretation of the
results and the
motivation for the
exercise.
• Limitations to the
conclusions/inferences
are complete, clearly
identified and their
relevance is clear.
• The inferences and
interpretations of the
results of the exercise
are mostly correct and
logical but not
complete.
• There is a link between
the inferences or
interpretation of the
results and the
motivation for the
exercise.
• Limitations to the
conclusions/inferences
are clearly identified
and their relevance is
clear.
•
• The inferences and
interpretations of the
results of the exercise
mostly are not correct
or not logical or
incomplete.
• There is some link
between the inferences
or interpretation of the
results and the
motivation for the
exercise.
• Most limitations to the
conclusions/inferences
are identified and their
relevance is clear.
• Some of the inferences
and interpretations of
the results of the
exercise are
incomplete, or not
correct or not logical.
• There is an unclear link
between the inferences
or interpretation of the
results and the
motivation for the
exercise.
• Some limitations to the
conclusions/inferences
are identified and their
relevance is stated.
• A large proportion of
the inferences and
interpretations of the
results of the exercise
contain errors, are
missed or are not
logical.
• There is no link
between the inferences
or interpretation of the
results and the
motivation for the
exercise.
• Limitations to the
conclusions/inferences
are not identified and
their relevance is not
clear or absent.