BIOL1006 Scientific Report Rubric 2022
Criteria Grade Marks total
Exceptional Excellent Good Satisfactory Room for improvement Absent
Intro: Title Complete, descriptive and concise Descriptive but lacking key information Adequate Generic and uninformative Missing 2
2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Intro: Review of relevant
literature
Exceptional analysis of relevant
literature to establish the background
and context for the current study
Background is clearly explained
through review of literature relevant to
the research question
Clear background with appropriate
links to the literature. Some
relevance to the context of the
study provided
Background is present but generic Little to no relevant context or
background provided
Missing 10
10 8.5 7 6 3 0
Intro: Significance Exceptional outline of knowledge
gaps and significance that is well-
integrated with existing literature
Clear explanation of the significance
is provided with appropriate links to
the literature
Significance of the study is
appropriately explained
Significance of the study is
acknowledged
Little consideration of significance,
purpose, or relevance of study
Missing 6
6 5 4 3 1.5 0
Intro: Hypothesis Well-defined, concise and well-
integrated hypothesis(es)
Clear hypothesis(es) that integrate into the rest of the introduction Hypothesis(es) relates to study Very unclear hypothesis(es) Missing 2
2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Results: Written description Clearly and concisely described Results are clearly and objectively
described
Results are described objectively
but may be slightly unclear
Results are described in an unclear
fashion and may include some
interpretation and/or methods
Results are poorly described Missing 8
8 7 6 5 2.5 0
Results: statistics Statistics are present clearly and
concisely and well integrated into the
written description
All values (i.e. test statistic, d.f., and p-value) are clearly and concisely
reported.
Statistical results (test statistic, d.f.,
and p-values) reported for all tests.
Significance of statistical test(s)
reported
Missing 2
2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Results: Presentation of
figure(s) and tables
Clear presentation of data in figure(s)
and/or table(s) with a figure or table
legend that is informative, clear and
concise, and appropriately placed
Clear presentation of data with correct
use of figure(s) and/or table(s)
captions that are descriptive
Data is presented in an appropriate
way although some errors may
exist in formatting or figure/table
legends are lacking information or
inappropriately placed
Type of visual representation of data
is appropriate but is unclear. Some
data may be double presented.
Data is incorrectly visually
represented and/or raw data may be
presented and/or there is excessive
double presenting of results.
Missing 8
8 7 5.5 4 2 0
Results: Reference to
figures
Well-integrated figure and/or table
references that are clear, concise and
sequential
Figure and/or table reference(s) integrated into descriptions and are
sequential
Figure and/or table reference(s) are
present
Figure and/or table reference(s) are
poorly referred to in the text
Missing 2
2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Discussion: Interpretation of
the results relative to the
hypothesis(es)
Interpretation is clear, correct and logically links back to the hypothesis(es) Results are interpreted correctly
with minimal reinstating of results
and links back to the
hypothesis(es).
Interpretation is present without clear
linkage to hypothesis(es). Results
may be restated.
Results are restated without
interpretation
Missing 3
3 2 1.5 0.5 0
Discussion: Effective use of
scientific literature to
compare patterns from
current findings to past
studies and provide
explanations around the
biology
Integration is clear, concise and
logical, including deeper analysis and
consideration of the biological
significance of the study to scientific
knowledge.
Existing literature is well integrated
with current study and there is
appropriately explained comparisons
and contrasts around the biology.
Effective comparison of current
study with cited studies and there
is some discussion around the
biology.
Other studies are cited and there is
comparison to current study.
Discussions around the biology is
minimal.
Little integration of current study to
existing literature
Missing 15
15 12 10 8 4 0
Discussion: Critical,
evidence-based evaluation
of methodology and
suggestions for new
research directions
Recognises possible improvements to
methodology from review and
analysis of other studies. Provides an
insightful discussion around the
biology with reference to the literature
to suggest extension of current study
or new directions for research.
Recognises improvements to
methodology and acknowledges
differences with other studies.
Discusses biology with links to the
other research studies to suggest
changes for further work.
Acknowledges improvements to
methodology with clear elaboration
of literature methods and suggests
possible changes
Acknowledges possible improvements
to methodology based on literature
and concept of continuing current
study
Little consideration of methodological
improvements or suggestions for
ongoing research.
Missing 15
15 12 10 8 4 0
Discussion: Conclusion Clear, concise and well-structured
conclusion with links to the research
question(s), within the framework of
what has been discussed
Conclusion to the study is clearly linked with the research question(s) Conclusions to the study is present Inadequate or vague conclusion Missing 2
2 1.5 1 0.5 0

References: in-text citations Minor or no citation errors Some citation errors present Major citation errors Missing 3
3 1.5 0.5 0
References: Reference list Exceptional presentation of reference list that has minor or no errors Reference list has some errors Poor presentation reference list Missing 3
3 1.5 0.5 0
References: Appropriate
choice of references
All information from reliable sources
including a broad range of primary
literature
Information was mostly drawn from
reliable sources and own sources of
primary literature were found.
Information was mostly drawn from
reliable sources but heavily relied
on references provided
References reflect some engagement
with the primary literature
Little or no use of references taken
from reliable sources
Missing 4
4 3 2.5 2 1 0
Writing and presentation:
Assessment formatting
Compliance with all criteria Compliance with all but 1 criterion Compliance with all but 2 criteria Compliance with all but 3 criteria Non-compliance with 4+ criteria 5
5 4 3.5 3 1.5
Writing and presentation:
Grammar and spelling,
sentence and paragraph
structure, use of scientific
and formal language
Exceptional readability with an
outstanding command of the written
scientific language
Very good readability with an
excellent command of the written
scientific language
Good readability where sentences
and paragraphs flow logically and
are mostly written with appropriate
scientific language.
Readability is adequate and some
informal language used.
Paragraphs are non-existent. Spelling
and/or grammar are very poor.
Persistent use of informal language
Missing 5
5 4 3.5 3 1.5 0
Writing and presentation:
Cohesion of report structure
Exceptional flow of ideas with
outstanding clarity of argument
Ideas flow clearly throughout the
report and arguments are logical
Ideas are linked and follow a
logical progression
Progression of thought is
understandable
Poor structure to report and lack of
coherence
Missing 5
5 4 3.5 3 1.5 0