Back

Research Proposal

Instructions

  • 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. 
  • To save this rubric use the 'Download rubric' button to turn it into a pdf document. Examiner must upload it 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 (Layman's) summary
  • The assignment is free of plagiarism and has been checked with Ouriginal* 
  • If Generative AI has been used this is done with proper citation and according to the School's guidelines
  • The rubrics are discussed between the examiner and daily supervisor (if not the same person)
  • The rubrics are (orally) discussed with the student to provide extra feedback
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

Layman's summary

• Misrepresents the content

• Represents most highlights

• Represents main information and all highlights

• Unattractive, too technical or too simple

• Understandable for the interested layman

• 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 focussed

• 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

• Takes feedback seriously yielding excellent improvements

Critical attitude

• Critical attitude is absent, asks no questions

• 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**

* 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

  1. Name supervisor/examiner
  2. Current date

Rubrics