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. Please, do not exceed the visible text in these open text boxes so the text remains accessible after export to a PDF.
  • 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 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

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 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