Rubric for Peer-reviewed lab reports

In order to help you learn to write as a scientist, you will peer-review your classmates’ work. Use this rubric both for the peer review and as guidance with your writing. Please also look at the Ye et al. (2017) paper to get a hint as to the style of scientific writing.

As you do your peer review, remember that even well-written papers can always use improvement. Don’t take it personally if your reviewer is critical of your paper. (believe me – I’ve experienced this too, even though I consider myself a reasonably good writer. You can look at a page from a draft of my dissertation edited by my adviser)

Component	Exceptional	Acceptable	Marginal
Title	Title conveys the essence of the paper. The reader is able to easily guess at the general hypothesis tested and perhaps the results.	The title is on topic but is nebulous. Would be difficult to identify the hypothesis and/or results.	Title is largely non-descriptive and conveys little information about the study itself.
Introduction	The author gives a compelling introduction that helps the reader understand why the topic is important and any necessary background knowledge. Explains what the study aims to accomplish and clearly lays out a research hypothesis.	The introduction lacks clarity and contains some useful information for helping the reader understand the topic, but the logic isn’t clear. May have a hypothesis, but the hypothesis is not clear or in the format of a research hypothesis.	Introduction does little to help the reader understand any background to the topic and/or is poorly written and missing elements needed to make a compelling argument. Lacks a research hypothesis.
Methods	Provides the reader with a clear idea of the methods used, and why. Written in prose (no bullets or numbers). Does not copy from the lab manual. Avoids long descriptions while enabling a competent scientist to perform the experiment him/herself.	Methods are either too vague or excessively detailed. Written as prose, but would be difficult for a competent scientist to repeat the experiment. Few or no explanations of why actions were taken.	Methods written would be exceedingly difficult to replicate, or are written as bullet points or numbered steps. Some procedures omitted. No explanations given as to why methods were followed.
Results	Data is clearly presented in a logical manner. The results section begins with prose, and tables and figures support the prose. All tables and figures in the results section are referenced by number in the text. Explanations of the results are avoided. Tables and figures have captions for adequate explanation of their contents. Calculations or manipulations done with raw data are clearly explained.	Some data may be missing or poorly expressed. Data is only presented in figures/tables, and neglected in the text. Captions to figures and tables are not descriptive enough to understand the contents of the figure or table.	Data is presented haphazardly and it may be difficult tto determine what the data represent. Data manipulations are not explained adequately.
Discussion	The results are related back to the original questions and research hypothesis. Offers detailed explanations for why results deviated from expectations. Identifies specific random and systematic errors that may affect results. Places study in broad context – what was learned, why is it important, and what can we do with this new knowledge?	Results are related back to the original hypothesis, but not critically evaluated. Inadequate discussion or identification of systematic or random errors. Makes only a weak case for why studies like this are important and what can be investigated next.	Very little analysis of results. Statements are vague and no critical evaluation of errors. Results inconsistent with predictions are explained by ‘human error’ or similarly vague language. Very little attempt to relate experimental findings to broader biological themes.
References	At least 2 proper citations of primary literature. Papers properly listed in a ‘References’ section. Papers cited are used to help the author substantiate argument and seem relevant to that task.	Citations are not done properly or not listed properly in a “References” section. Papers cited seem relevant to the argument being made.	Less than 2 citations used. Citations that are used seem to be used incorrectly or seem to be irrelevant to the argument.
Writing and style	Paper has few, if any, grammatical or spelling mistakes and is easy to read and well organized. Uses present tense for “universal truths’ and past tense for actions taken and things discovered.	Paper has occasional errors, but may be a bit difficult to read. Tense is generally correct with no more than a few mistakes	Paper needs to be proofread for grammatical and spelling errors. May even have some incomplete or run-on sentences. Incorrect use of tense.