• Clear context and objectives stated: Introduction/gap in knowledge/aims

• Methods and results are stated quantitatively and concisely (p-values, n numbers)

• The conclusion is critical and suggests future implications and the relevance of results

• Logical flow and clear, convincing communication backed by evidence

  
  

  Scoring scale

poor, below average, average, good, very good, excellent

·      Concise, objective and logical language

·      Clear objectives stated

·      Coherent, evenly distributed structure

·      Accurate representation of the study

Imperial rubric guidelines

Technical detail / specificity

Interpretation of findings (not over or under-interpreting)

Takeaway message for audience

Good with imperial criteria :)

2. Precise content, including the key details and P-value.

3. Formal and objective language and avoiding personal point of view

4. Future research directions.

1. Includes all the sections (intro, background, aims, methods, results, conclusion) in a coherent manner. Clear structure 

2. Clarity and detailed linguistics, easy to understand 

3. Content is within the parameters of the research and findings. Does not overstate or overexplain 

4. Provides sufficient evidence to support findings 

5. Includes future research/directions and limitations of the study. 

0= very poor

1= poor

2= average

3= good

4= very good

5= excellent

We will be judging the following criteria

Structure and pacing

Clarity

Balanced and accurate representation of the study

Clear description of background and objective of the research, but it’s too detailed to compare different patients’ outcomes and can give a little bit more about his/her own thoughts when talking about results. And also highlight the significance of their study.

Results 58

background and relevance: context is clearly described and gaps in knowledge is identified

key findings: the main findings are identified and given statistical evidence, with conclusions stated. the conclusions are linked back to the background and future directions in the field.

clear and formal language: use objective and scientific language. Engage the audience but still stay concise with word choice.

Criteria 2: Detailed

Criteria 3: Language clarity

Criteria 4: Clear context and objectives

scoring scale:

• Distinction: exceptional work that shows a complete understanding of the concepts with adequate details on significance, results, and methods. Very well written.

• Merit: Shows a clear understanding of the concepts and facts, is clear with accurate amount of detail

• Pass: Shows a basic understanding of the concepts, gives a decent amount of relevant material

• Fail: Little to no understanding of fundamental concepts, very vague, poor outlining of the main components of an abstract, not very readable

Criteria:

Distinction:

Concise and accurate summary of research; detailed, intriguing introduction and context; state a meaningful aim addressing the research gap; demonstrate relevant and significant results and exceptionally explain and interpret results at a reasonable level; State conclusion clearly and suggest future implication.

Merit:

Show a brief and clear summary of research; include clear and concise background information; explain results effectively but lack the level of interpretation; State conclusions and give few suggestions for future implication.

Pass:

Show some summary and introduction related to research and context; state a obscure aim, no research gap is mentioned; State conclusions less clearly and give several suggestions of future implication.

Fail:

Show a unclear summary related to research and context; doesn't state a clear aim, no research gap is mentioned; doesn't give a clear conclusions and give no suggestions of future implication.