Back

Research Report

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
  • Select project type
    • Major
    • Profile
    • Mini-project

Preconditions for thesis to be eligible for assessment

  • This report has a single author (the student) 
  • The report contains a plain language (Layman's) summary
  • The report 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
Content
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

Graphical abstract

• Not present or fails to explain message of research

• Explains message of research

• Explains key message of research in a clear and attractive way

Introduction

• Incomplete problem description and/or inaccurate overview of literature

• Adequate problem description and/or overview of relevant literature

• Concise problem description and/or overview of relevant literature

• Does not cite relevant literature

• Cites relevant literature

• Key references included

• Research question absent or lacking focus

• Research question well defined and focussed

• Substantiated research question with clear focus

• Relevance (scientific and/or societal) of research question unclear                                                 

• Relevance (scientific and/or societal) of research question clarified

• Research question has the potential to contribute useful new knowledge to the scientific field or society

Methods section

• Does not reveal how results were obtained

• Allows understanding of how results were obtained

• Crucial steps are identified and highlighted

• Experiment(s)/design(s) cannot be repeated with the given information

• Experiment(s)/design(s) can be repeated with a little further research

• All information necessary to repeat experiment(s)/design(s) is present

Results

• Cannot be understood without information provided by figures and tables

• Can be understood without information provided by figures and tables

• Can be easily understood without information provided by figures and tables

• Invalid description and analysis of data

• Satisfactory description and analysis of data

• Complete and concise description and analysis of data

• Invalid interpretation of data

• Satisfactory interpretation of data

• Convincing interpretation of data

Tables and figures

• Absent/incorrect referral in written text


• Correctly referred to in written text

• Cannot be understood without the main text


• Can be understood without additional information

• Incorrect presentation or irrelevant data shown


• Excellent presentation of acquired data

• Uses existing figures without correct referencing

• Uses existing figures (or slight adaptations) with proper referencing

• Designs own figure(s) combining key information from different sources

• Legends provide insufficient information

• Legends contain the necessary information

• Legends are complete and concise

Discussion and conclusion

• Does not get back to the research question

• Answers or discusses the research question

• Concisely answers and/or discusses the research question

• Data inadequately discussed, sticking rigidly to existing concepts or using invalid arguments

• Relation between data and research question discussed, using valid arguments

• Concise, sensible and in depth discussion of data in relation to research question

• Discussion fails to address strengths and weaknesses of study

• Strengths, limitations, and new insights are addressed in the light of the literature

• Complete, critical, and balanced discussion of strengths, limitations, and new insights

• Conclusion is weak or not supported by evidence

• Conclusion is in line with presented evidence

• Concise, sensible conclusion of presented evidence in relation to research question

• New insights and models or hypotheses are missing or illogical

• New insights and models or hypotheses are presented

• New insights and models or hypotheses are discussed in depth

• Suggestions for additional research are missing or illogical

• Suggestions for future research may be based on weak assumptions

• Suggestions for future research have in depth argumentation

• Societal impact is not part of the discussion

• Societal impact is part of the discussion

• Societal impact is explained in a convincing way

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

Writing skills

• Disturbing spelling or grammar mistakes

• No errors present detected by spellcheckers

• Grammar and style support legibility of the document

• Information frequently and disturbingly repeated

• Information sometimes unnecessarily repeated

• Information only repeated when necessary

• Style too wordy or too concise

• Grammar and style enable understanding of the information

• Writing flows smoothly

• 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 situations

• 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 reliable and trustworthy

 • Data accurate, reliable, and trustworthy

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