To provide feedback on the different criteria use the sliding bar to indicate where the student fits best. Note that the position of the scalebar does not reflect a linear scale from 0-10 points.
The descriptions of performance levels are only indicative of what is expected and additional comments in the open remarks space 'Feedback/feedforward' may be necessary to fine-tune, add criteria, or specify feedback. The space 'Additional Criteria, Feedback, and Comments' at the bottom of the Rubric can also be used for this purpose.
A written narrative accompanying the rubric should be filled in under 'Additional Criteria, Feedback, and Comments'. This field is obligatory.
If a criterium is not applicable, you can use the eye icon on the right to grey-out the criterium.
The rubrics are automatically saved to your browser, so you can continue working at a later time-point. To clear the rubrics for a next student use the option 'clear fields' at the bottom of the page. There you can also download the rubric use the 'Download rubric' button to turn it into a pdf document. The examiner must upload the pdf at the right step in OSIRIS Case.
An instruction video on how you can make the best use of the rubrics can be found here.
Name student
Research group
Select Master's programme
Biofabrication
Bioinformatics and Biocomplexity
Bio Inspired Innovation
Biology of Disease
Cancer, Stem Cells and Developmental Biology
Cardiovascular Health and Disease
Drug Innovation
Environmental Biology
Epidemiology
Epidemiology Postgraduate
Health and Environment
Infection and Immunity
Medical Imaging
Molecular and Cellular Life Sciences
Neuroscience and Cognition
One Health
Regenerative Medicine and Technology
Science and Business Management
Toxicology and Environmental Health
Student number
Rubric filled in by
Examiner
Second reviewer
Supervisor host institute
Daily supervisor
Student
Preconditions for research proposal to be eligible for assessment
This assignment has a single author (the student) *
The assignment contains a plain language summary *
A statement is made whether Generative AI has been used or not. If Generative AI has been used this is done with proper citation and according to the School's guidelines *
The assignment is free of plagiarism and has been checked with Ouriginal (required for examiner)
The rubrics are discussed between the examiner and daily supervisor, if not the same person (required for examiner)
The rubrics are (orally) discussed with the student to provide extra feedback (required for examiner)
Criteria
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Scientific Proposal
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback / feedforward
Title
• Does not justify the content
• Represents the content
• Concise and attracts attention
Plain language summary
• Misrepresents the content
• Represents most highlights
• Represents main information and all highlights
• Unattractive, too technical or too simple
• Understandable for the interested non-expert
• Interesting to read and easy to understand
Abstract
• Misrepresents the content
• Represents most highlights
• Represents main information and all highlights
• Lacks components
• Contains all components
• Concise and correct
• Is hard to understand
• Can be understood without additional information
Keywords
• Irrelevant or not present
• Mostly relevant
• All relevant
Research Topic
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Background
• Incomplete or incorrect description of relevant data or retrieved literature
• Satisfactory descriptions of relevant data or retrieved literature
• Concise description of all relevant data or retrieved literature
• Analysis/interpretation of data or retrieved literature is not correct
• Analysis/interpretation of data or retrieved literature is correct
• Analysis/interpretation of data or retrieved literature is convincing and creative
• Does not cite relevant literature
• Cites relevant literature
• Key references included
Overal aim (research question)
• Not in line with presented data or retrieved literature
• Follows logically from presented data or retrieved literature
• Addresses existing gap in the data or retrieved literature
• Research question absent or lacking focus
• Research question well defined and focused
• Substantiated research question with clear focus
• Relevance (scientific and/or societal) of aim or research question unclear
• Relevance (scientific and/or societal) of aim or research question clarified
• Aim or research question has the potential to contribute useful new knowledge to the scientific field or society
Objectives (subquestions)
• Not in line with overal aim
• In line with overal aim
• Perfect covarage of overal aim
• Unclear formulation
• Clear formulation
• Unambigous formulation
Innovative aspects
• Only obvious aspects to meet the objectives
• Some aspects are innovative
• Original and innovative way to meet objectives
Approach
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Research design
• Insufficient explanation of the experimental approach
• Experimental approach based on literature
• Experimental approach excellently substantiated
• Very little, if any, justification of proposed research
• Considerable amount of justification of proposed research
• Clear definition of scope and limitations
• Not in line with objectives
• Meets objectives
• High chance to achieve objectives
Data analysis plan
• Insufficient description of data analysis plan
• Sufficient description of data analysis plan
• Clearly subtantiated data analysis plan
• Unrealistic data collection plan (for analysis)
• Realistic data collection plan (for analysis)
• Substantiated data collection plan (for analysis)
Workplan
• Not in line with objectives
• In line with objectives
• Perfect match with objectives
• Deliverables are outdated or described incompletely
• Deliverables are clearly described
• Deliverables are innovative
Tables, figures, supporting information
• Are irrelevant and/or do not support the text
• Are relevant and support the text
• Are original and provide an excellent addition to the text
• Are difficult to understand
• Can be understood without additional information
• Presented in the best possible way
• Legends provide insufficient information
• Legends contain the necessary information
• Legends are complete and concise
Feasibility / risk assessment
• Proposed outcomes unrealistic within time frame
• Proposed outcomes feasible in proposed timeframe
• Back up plan for time constraints described in plan B
• No attention for risks/serendipity/unexpected outcomes
• Attention for risks/serendipity/unexpected outcomes
• Interesting ideas about alternative outcomes
Scientific and Societal Impact
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Scientific impact
• Incorrect estimation
• Feasible estimation
• Convincingly highlights scientific necessity
• Application perspective is lacking
• Application perspective provided for own research field
• Application perspective also beyond own research field
Societal impact
• Incorrect estimation and lack of societal engagement
• Feasible estimation and engagement society addressed
• Convincingly emphasizes societal impact
Ethical considerations
• Incomplete/incorrect recognition
• Recognized and sufficiently discussed
• Recognized and extensively discussed
•Proposal violates ethical rules for doing research
• In line with ethical rules for doing research
• Defines and adheres to relevant ethical standards
Structure and Style
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Structure and line of reasoning
• The line of thought is unclear
• Line of thought mostly clear
• The line of thought is easy to follow and supported by the structure
• Text is badly structured
• Text is well structured
• Structure supports legibility of text
Referencing
• Does not cite relevant literature
• Cites relevant literature
• Key references included
• Referral is inconsistent, incomplete, or incorrect; references cannot be retrieved*
• Referral is consistent, complete, and correct; references can be traced
Writing skills
• Disturbing spelling or grammar mistakes
• No errors present detected by spellcheckers
• Grammar and style support legibility of the document
• Style too wordy or too concise
• Grammar and style enable understanding of the information
• Writing flows smoothly
• Information frequently and disturbingly repeated
• Information sometimes unnecessarily repeated
• Information only repeated when necessary
• Referral is inconsistent, incomplete, or incorrect; references cannot be retrieved*
• Referral is consistent, complete, and correct; references can be traced
Professional Attitude
Insufficient
Sufficient - Good
Good - Excellent
Feedback/feedforward
Initiative, independence, handling feedback
• Relies on supervisor's instructions only to handle content; depth is lacking
• Takes initiative (initially) after stimulation; part of ideas/content conceived independently
• Takes initiative; content (including finding references) is provided independently
• Does not request feedback
• Requests general feedback
• Takes initiative to request feedback for specific sections
• Responds defensively or ignores feedback; minimal improvements after feedback
• Responds well to feedback leading to reasonable improvements
• Shows self-reflection and has critical attitude towards (published) research
• Critical attitude is based on intellectual depth and profundity
Integrity, conscientiousness
• Data manipulated or left out*
• Data used in a reliable and trustworthy manner
Punctuality
• Does not meet deadlines
• Meets most deadlines
• Sets own deadlines and adheres to them
• Does not keep appointments
• Keeps appointments
• Schedules appointments when necessary
Additional Criteria, Feedback, and Comments**
(required)
* In case of fraud or plagiarism, the examiner will inform the Board of Examiners of this in writing
** Obligatory: please provide a written narrative to accompany the rubrics
Name supervisor/examiner
Current date
Required precondition checkbox or additional criteria has not been filled correctly