BIOL1X08 Scientific Report Marking Rubric 2023
Mark Meets criteria Broadly addresses criteria Room for improvement Does not meet criteria
Title and Introduction 5
Title
1
Complete and informative title
containing all key information
Descriptive but incomplete where some key information is
missing
Generic and
uninformative and
missing
1 0.5 0
Context
3
Current state of knowledge and
biological justification for
hypothesis stated clearly.
Relevant studies cited.
Current state of knowledge or biological justification for
hypothesis not stated clearly. Some relevant studies cited.
Current state of knowledge and
biological justification for
hypothesis not stated clearly.
Irrelevant or no studies cited.
Missing
3 2 1 0
Hypothesis
1
Clear hypothesis Unclear or vague hypothesis Missing
1 0.5 0
Results 7
Written description of
each correlation (min,
max, sample size,
type/strength of
correlations, r values) is
reported clearly, concisely
and objectively
3
Results clearly, objectively and
concisely described
Results are described mostly objectively and/or may be
slightly unclear
Results described in an unclear
fashion and/or includes
excessive interpretation
Missing
3 2 1 0
Presentation of figures
3
Clear and appropriate
presentation of data with
complete figure legend(s)
Data is presented in appropriately chosen graph(s) but is
somewhat unclear. Figure legend(s) either unclear or missing.
Data is incorrectly presented as
either raw data and/or there is
double presenting of results
Missing
3 2 1 0
Reference to figures
1
All figure references are clear,
concise and well-integrated in the
written description of results
All or some figure references are present but not
well-integrated in the written description of results
All figure references
missing
1 0.5 0
Discussion 8
Interpretation of results
relative to the hypothesis
1
Interpretation is clear and
logically links back to the
hypothesis. Minimal restating of
results.
Interpretation is present without clear linkage to the
hypothesis. Results are somewhat restated.
Interpretation is missing
or results are restated
without interpretation
1 0.5 0
Draw biological
implications from the
current study and provide
explanations around the
biology supported by
evidence in the scientific
literature.
4
Integration is clear and logical,
including deeper analysis around
possible biological mechanisms to
explain patterns in current and
past studies.
Biological implications of
findings from the current study
or past studies are discussed
based on evidence from cited
studies.
Other studies are cited and
there is some comparison of
results with the current study.
Discussion around the
biology is minimal.
Provides possible reasons to
explain findings from current
study or past studies but
discussion around the biology is
minimal.
Discussion to explain
findings from current
study or past studies
missing.
4 3 2 1 0
Evidence-based
suggestions for future
research directions
2
Provides an insightful discussion
around the biology with
reference to the literature to
evaluate and suggest extensions
of current study.
Provides some discussion
around the biology using
evidence from the literature to
suggest ideas for further
work.
Acknowledges improvements
for future studies. May be
overly focused on
improvements to
methodology. Scientific
literature is cited.
Little consideration of
suggestions for ongoing
research or integration of
literature to support ideas is
lacking.
Evaluation of
improvements to
methodology or
suggestions for future
research directions
missing.
2 1.5 1 0.5 0
Conclusion
1
Clear, concise conclusion that
highlights the major findings and
significance of study
Conclusion summarises the findings of the study. Conclusion is vague,
inadequate or missing.
1 0.5 0
Referencing 3
Formatting of citations
and reference list
1.5
Excellent presentation of citations
and reference list that has minor
or no errors.
Some errors with in-text citations or reference list. Poor presentation of in-text
citations and reference list
In-text citations and
reference list missing.
1.5 1 0.5 0
Appropriate choice of
references
1.5
At least 5 reference used and
most information was taken from
scientific literature (scientific
articles and reviews)
At least 5 references used and at least half but not all the
references reflect engagement with the scientific literature.
No usage of references taken
from reliable sources and/or
fewer than 5 references
No references used.
1.5 1 0.5 0
Writing and Presentation 2
Correct font face, font
size, line spacing, margins 1
Compliance with all criteria Compliance with 2-3 criteria Compliance with 1 criterion No compliance with any
criteria
1 0.5 0.25 0
Sentence and paragraph
structure, use of scientific
and formal language
1
Very good readability with an
excellent command of written
scientific language
Adequate readability where most sentences and paragraphs
flow logically and are mostly written with appropriate
scientific language