BABS1201 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.


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 BABS1201
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
BABS1201 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
BABS1201 audience.
The content is
effectively tailored to
their level of
understanding.

1.0 
- The writing lacks
clarity and logical
structure, impacting
on readability.

- The content is not
effectively tailored to a
BABS201 audience.

0.5 
- No attempt is made to
meet the requirements
of clear writing,
structured presentation
for a BABS1201
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 of in-text
citations formatted
incorrectly/ not in
Harvard style.

- Many of 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 how
they have refined the
scope and focus.

- Clearly states how the
refined topic choice
aligns with and
contributes to the course
theme/s.

- 2.0 
- Clearly identifies the
chosen topic and
provides a well-defined
explanation of how the
scope and focus have
been refined.

- Clearly states the
relation of the refined
topic to course theme/s
but with minor gaps in
explanation.

- 1.5 
- States the chosen topic
and offers a basic
description of how the
scope and focus have
been refined.

- Provides a vague or
partial connection
between the refined
topic 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 refined
topic and course
theme/s.

- 0.5 
- No attempt 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
identifies each article as
either a primary
research article or a
review article.

- 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.

- 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.

- Provides a clear
explanation of the
relevance of each
article but lacks the
detail to communicate
why one article was
selected over another.

- 2 
- 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.

Offers a basic explanation
for the choice of articles, but
lacks information on why
each specific article was
chosen over others

- 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.

The explanation for
article selection is
minimal or unclear, it
cannot be determined
why the articles were
chosen over others.

- 0.5 
- No attempt made to
include the required
articles, any articles
included are not
relevant and no
required details for
present articles are
provided.

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 
Documentat
ion 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.

- 0 
Choice of
articles
- Describes comprehensive
and well-supported
explanations for the
selection of each article.

- Clearly outlines the details
for each article including
the journal and publication
year.

- 2.0 
- Outlines clear and
well-supported
reasons for choosing
each article.

- Outlines the details
for each article
including the journal
and publication year.
- 1.5 
- Provides some
reasons for selecting
each article,
demonstrating a
basic understanding
of their relevance to
the topic.

- Inclusion of two
primary articles and
one review article is
evident but lacks
clear details for each.

- 1.0 
- Offers limited or
unclear explanations
for the choice of
articles, lacking clarity
or coherence.

- One or more articles
lack necessary
details.

- 0.5 
- No attempt made to
describe the reasons
for selecting the
articles.