Skip to main content
iRubric: Literature Review rubric

iRubric: Literature Review rubric

find rubric

edit   print   share   Copy to my rubrics   Bookmark   test run   assess...   delete   Do more...
Literature Review 
Literature Review
Write a short library research paper on topic you were assigned in the form of a scholarly scientific review paper. The purpose of this assignment is to introduce you to the process of critically analyzing scientific research as well as introduce you to scientific writing, literature searches, and citation procedures.
Rubric Code: T2XBBCB
By Galiyeva
Ready to use
Public Rubric
Subject: Medical  
Type: Writing  
Grade Levels: Undergraduate

Powered by iRubric Criteria
100 %
  Needs Improvement

5 pts

Developing

10 pts

Meets Expectations

15 pts

Exceeds Expectations

20 pts

Organisation
20 %

Paper follows all instructions provided for the literature review:
1. 4-5 Pages in length (no more than 5 pages)
2. 12-point, Times New Roman font with 1-inch margins
3. Title Page, Intro, Critical Evaluation of each work, Conclusion, and reference section.
4. Infrequent use of quotations
5. Proper use of APA format

The paper is organized in a logical manner with clear transitions between sections that link core concepts.
Needs Improvement

Instruction for paper organization were not evident. The paper is lacking organization of ideas. The progression between sections is jolting. Links between core concepts are missing or misleading.
Developing

Instruction for paper organization was evident throughout some of the paper.
The overall structure of the review is clear, but some sections are weak. Transitions that clarify the relationships between core concepts are occasionally either missing or misleading.
Meets Expectations

Instruction for paper organization was evident throughout most of the paper.
The review is clearly organized. A logical progression of ideas is presented with some discussion in each section. Transitions between sections, that link core concepts, give a clear flow to the report.
Exceeds Expectations

Instructions for paper organization was evident throughout the entire paper. The review is exceptionally organized. Writer demonstrates logical sequencing of ideas through well-developed discussions in each section. Transitions between sections, that link core concepts, enhance the flow of the report.
Clarity of writing and writing technique
20 %

Communicating clearly with the intended audience. Writing does not allow for misinterpretation (clear words, phrases, and sentence structure). The writing is concise, and the intended meaning is clear, accurate, and unambiguous.
Needs Improvement

It is hard to know what the writer is trying to express. Writing is convoluted. Misspelled words, incorrect grammar, and improper punctuation are evident.
Developing

Writing is generally clear, but unnecessary words are occasionally used. Meaning is sometimes hidden. Paragraph or sentence structure is too repetitive. Five or greater spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors are made.
Meets Expectations

Writing is clear throughout the majority of the paper, unnecessary words are occasionally used. Meaning is sometimes hidden. Paragraph or sentence structure is too repetitive. Few (<5) spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors are made.
Exceeds Expectations

Writing is crisp, clear, and succinct. The writer incorporates the active voice when appropriate and supports ideas with examples. No spelling, grammar, or punctuation errors are made.
Introduction
5 %

Introduction of topic including a clear statement of the topic and why the this topic is interesting, problematic, important, or relevant.
Needs Improvement

Neither implicit nor explicit reference is made to the topic or purpose of the paper or why this topic has any relevancy.
Developing

Readers are somewhat aware of the topic or purpose of the paper, including why this topic has any relevancy.
Meets Expectations

Readers are mostly aware of the topic or purpose of the paper, including the motivation for the study.
Exceeds Expectations

Introduces the topic in an engaging and interesting manner. Clearly and concisely states relevancy, giving a thorough motivation for the study.
Body
30 %

Critical Evaluation of each work (Why & How, not What): How is each work similar or different with respect to the topic?
I. Identify areas that need further work and pinpoint discrepancies in the existing literature
II. Relate explicitly to your current research topic
III. Classify the existing body of knowledge in reference to what is already proven/known and unknown.
IV. Formulate research questions that need to be worked further.
Needs Improvement

The content is inadequate or inaccurately presented. Core concepts are not discussed or are irrelevant to objectives.

The discussion is minimally supported by related literature. Findings are summarized, but not interpreted (candidate simply repeats the findings in the results section). The discussion fails to place the findings in context or include implications for future studies.
Developing

The content covers the most important topics, but further material is needed to fully cover the subject or some of the content is presented unclearly. Discussion of core concepts is attempted but not fully developed.

The discussion is somewhat supported by related literature and discrepancies in the literature are glossed over. Findings are interpreted using jargon. Results are somewhat placed in context and implications for future research are identified.
Meets Expectations

The content covers an sufficient range of material accurately. Discussion of core concepts links to the objectives of the study and leads up to the conclusions of the study.

The discussion is mostly supported by related literature and discrepancies in the literature are mostly identified.. Findings are interpreted using some jargon. Results are mostly placed in context and implications for future research are identified.
Exceeds Expectations

The content is exceptionally comprehensive and accurate. Core concepts are discussed in-depth, linking discussions to the objectives and leading to conclusions that spark new ideas.

The discussion is supported by related literature, discrepancies are pinpointed, and theoretical connections are made to your research results. Findings are interpreted using a minimal amount of jargon. Implications and future directions are clearly identified.
Conclusion
10 %

Relevant conclusions that relate to the objectives and follow from the content of the review are presented. It should include a summary of the general conclusions made.
Needs Improvement

There is no indication the author tried to synthesize the information or make a conclusion based on the literature under review. No application to disease process is provided. The paper does not contain a conclusion.
Developing

The author provides little concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. Many of the conclusions were not supported in the body of the report. The application to disease process is stated. Conclusion is complete but is not original. Rehash of Introduction. Conclusion is not finished.
Meets Expectations

The author provides concluding remarks that show an analysis and synthesis of ideas occurred. Some of the conclusions, however, were not supported in the body of the report. The application to disease process is stated. Conclusion is complete but is not original. Rehash of Introduction.
Exceeds Expectations

The author was able to make succinct and precise conclusions based on the review. Insights into the problem are appropriate. Conclusions and the application to disease process are strongly indicated in the review. Conclusion is complete and completely original.
References
15 %

A range of relevant sources have been carefully selected for the review. Analyses at least 10 peer reviewed documents published within the past 5 years.
Needs Improvement

Citation for the article did not follow appropriate format and was missing essential information.

Selection of sources is inadequate or irrelevant to topic. Citations omitted from text.
Developing

Citation for the article did follow proper formatting however; more than 3 errors in essential information were evident.

Adequate selection of sources, however not all are relevant or correctly cited in the text. Less than 10 sources referenced.
Meets Expectations

Citation for the article did follow proper formatting however; a few (<3) errors in essential information were evident.

Adequate selection of relevant sources that are correctly cited in the text. At least 10 sources referenced.
Exceeds Expectations

Citation for the article did follow appropriate formatting. Essential information was accurate and complete.

Relevant and thorough selection of sources that are cited correctly and strategically throughout text. Key papers on topic have been sourced. At least 10 sources referenced.






Discuss this rubric




Do more with this rubric:
Preview

Preview

Preview this rubric.
Edit

Edit

Modify this rubric.
Copy

Copy

Make a copy of this rubric and begin editing the copy.

Print

Print

Show a printable version of this rubric.
Categorize

Categorize

Add this rubric to multiple categories.
Bookmark

Bookmark

Bookmark this rubric for future reference.
Assess
Test run

Test run

Test this rubric or perform an ad-hoc assessment.
Grade

Grade

Build a gradebook to assess students.
Collaborate

Collaborate

Apply this rubric to any object and invite others to assess.
Share
Publish

Publish

Link, embed, and showcase your rubrics on your website.
Email

Email

Email this rubric to a friend.
Discuss

Discuss

Discuss this rubric with other members.
 

Do more with rubrics than ever imagined possible.

Only with iRubrictm.


Copyright © 2024 Reazon Systems, Inc.  All rights reserved.
n16