Example 5 - Evaluation of Critiques of Scientific Articles
Characteristics to note in the rubric:
- Language is descriptive, not evaluative.
- Labels for degrees of success are descriptive ("Expert" "Proficient", etc.); by avoiding the use of letters representing grades or numbers representing points, there is no implied contract that qualities of the paper will "add up" to a specified score or grade or that all dimensions are of equal grading value.
- The professor provides this to the students when the assignment to critique an article is given as a tool for them to self-check their critiques.
Download Critique of a Scientific Article Rubric
Evaluation of Critiques of Scientific Articles
| Expert | Proficient | Apprentice | Novice | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Introduction |
Clearly summarizes the aims of and methods used by the authors. |
Summary is complete, but lacks clarity. |
Picture communicated is not clear; connection to paper is not obvious. |
No real introduction. |
| Data presentation |
There is a clear understanding of experimental design, especially controls. It is also clear that you understand what was observed and how it relates to the authors' model or hypothesis. |
Some parts of the experiments have not been understood. You may not have a clear grasp of the model being tested, or the relevance of the data |
There are significant gaps in understanding, or inaccuracies in reporting the data. You have shown some understanding, but there are clearly large parts of the paper that you haven't mastered. |
Hurriedly done, with little understanding. |
| Criticism |
There is a clear understanding of the authors' interpretation, of the implications of the results for the hypothesis. Outside information is brought to bear on evaluating the design and conclusions. |
Not quite as clear an understanding. Less complete evaluation of design and conclusions. |
Uncritical acceptance of authors' conclusions. Or baseless objections to them. |
Little or no mention of authors' intent. Little or no evaluation. |
| Cohesiveness |
You have selected the data most relevant to the authors' aims. Your conclusions actually make results clearer. |
Although the most relevant data are selected, your picture of the authors' aims and conclusions is not quite as clear and/or complete. |
Some of the data you have selected do not seem as relevant to the overall aims of the paper. You seem to have missed some important parts. |
Lack understanding of the paper or its context. Authors' aims are unclear. |
| Spelling/grammar |
No spelling or grammatical errors. |
Very few spelling or grammatical errors. |
Errors on almost every page. |
Apparently no proofreading done. |
J. Cardon