DENG802 Doctoral Dissertation Research Paper 1 Assessment Brief 2025, Engineering Institute of Technology (EIT)

Unit code 

DENG802

Unit name

Doctoral Dissertation Research Paper 1

Assessment #

1

Version #

1

Created by

Vinnu Madhav

Date

21 July 2022

Reviewed by 

Milind Siddhpura

Date

12 Feb 2025

Unit code and name:

DENG802: Doctoral Dissertation Research Paper 1

Assessment #:  

1

Assessment type: 

Draft Paper Submission

Weighting:

30%

Total marks:

100 marks

F  (0 – 50%)

P  (50 – 64%)

C (65 – 74%)

D (75 – 84%)

HD

 (85 – 100%)

Paper Title (5)

No title, no keywords and, not properly formatted

Poorly stated title, a general description, not properly formatted, no keywords

Satisfactory stated title includes some key words found in aim, not properly formatted,

Complete title, includes key words used in aim, properly formatted

Complete title, includes clear keywords found in aim and mentioned in introduction, properly formatted

Abstract (15)

No abstract, missing three or

more components (background, aim, methodology, results or conclusion) of an abstract, too long or too short. Is not written in a scientific style, and includes references in abstract

Missing two components (background, aim, methodology, results or conclusion) of a good abstract. Doesn’t give an overview that leads directly to the readers to get the major findings of the study. 

Missing one component of a good abstract and the abstract is not well organised or concise. 

Includes all components of a good abstract. Well written with relevant background, aim, results and conclusion, in proportion to each other.

Excellently written clear and concise abstract. States clearly questions being asked in given word limit (mostly 200-250 words). Highlights the major findings and conclusion with enough information to understand the research. It’s a concise summary of research question and findings.             

Introduction/ background

(10)

Missing, too short or little or no relevance to the topic. No references or inadequate references 

Though fairly clear, it gives inconsistent support to the research problem. Though uses of the references are adequate most of them are not from the sources that are peer-reviewed.

Gives satisfactory perspective on the problem. Gives explanation of the novelty and the aim. Uses adequate references.

Gives good perspective on the problem on a national and international level. Gives good explanation of the novelty of the research work and why the aim is important to study. Uses relevant references.

Gives a clear perspective on the problem on a national and international level. What is known and what is unknown.  Clearly states the novelty of the research work and why the aim is important to study. Uses highly relevant and current references.

Literature Review (10)

Information is gathered from a single source. No organization, sequencing, or structure. No conclusions are made from the evidence offered. Research question(s) were not formed and are not apparent from the literature review. Information is not cited or is cited incorrectly. 

More like article summary. Information is gathered from a limited number of sources. Weakly organized with no logical sequencing or structure. There is rare indication of conclusions from the evidence offered. Research question(s) were not formed but could be formed through the literature review. Information is cited, but has errors.

Demonstrates adequate understanding of the scope and significance of the problem and its conceptual basis; uses scientific terminology; provides enough relevant resources to justify the research question(s) ; occasionally uses the cited literature to draw the conclusion that justify the proposed  research as a logical next step.

Information is gathered from multiple sources.

Well organized, but demonstrates illogical sequencing or structure. Frequently uses the cited literature to draw the conclusions that effectively justify the proposed research as a logical next step.

Information is cited properly.

Information is gathered from multiple, research-based sources. Well organized, demonstrates logical sequencing & structure, thorough grasp of conceptual basis, scope and significance of the problem.

Detailed conclusions are reached from the evidence offered. Research question(s) are formed through the literature review and clearly stated.

Information is cited properly and in proper format.

Methodology

(15)

Flaws in methodology with little scientific rigor. Research method is poorly described and does not match with the research question.

Operationalization is missing, or not adequate. Standards for validity, reliability and suitability are not met. Sampling method, instrumentation, time frame of the research projects is poorly identified.

Methods for collecting and analyzing data are discussed minimally and hardly related to the research objectives. Validity, reliability and suitability of the study are somewhat justified.  Sampling method, instrumentation, time frame of the research projects are vaguely identified.

Some scientific rigor in pursuing the project with substantial gaps in intellectual evaluation and research. Research method has been described accurately and is justified. Validity, reliability and suitability are acceptable. Method is applied correctly, matching scope and depth of the research question. Sampling method,

instrumentation, time frame of

the research projects is identified.

Limited scientific rigor in pursuing the project with some gaps in intellectual evaluation and research. The selected research method is non-standard and checked on validity, reliability and suitability. The project is methodologically well embedded and substantiated. Sampling method, instrumentation, time frame of the research projects is clearly identified.

Exceptional scientific rigor in pursuing the project. The project has an original/innovative, and appropriate methodological approach, and contributes to the existing methodology, or shows an innovative application of methods by combining elements in an original way. The research method is fully substantiated, and described transparently. Sampling method, instrumentation, time frame of the research projects is very clearly identified.

Results (15)

Results not satisfactorily related to aim or mostly missing. Tables or figures with faults or missing.

For qualitative projects: Quotes missing

Too many or too few results presented, not clear which are the main ones. Tables or figures contain relevant characteristics of study. For qualitative projects: Too many or too few quotes presented.

Demonstrates general understanding with limited critical analysis of the research topic.

Tables and figures contain relevant characteristics of the study. For qualitative projects quotes are appropriately presented.

Results based on the aim are presented. Adequately structured. Tables and figures contain relevant characteristics of the study. Main results highlighted in tables/figures. 

For qualitative projects: Quotes adequately presented.

Main results based on the aim are

clearly presented. Clearly structured. Tables and figures contain relevant characteristics of the study. Main results highlighted in tables/figures. Missing data clearly indicated. Flow chart presented when appropriate. For qualitative projects: Quotes clearly presented with a good structure.

Discussion

(10)

Not relevant to study or poorly structured. No connection to the results. No connection to other research. Strength and weaknesses of the study are not mentioned.

Some of the discussions are partially related to the study.  Though the strength and weakness of the study are mentioned, they have hardly any relation to the study 

Satisfactory discussion of results and strength and weaknesses of the study are adequately mentioned

Well- written discussion of main results in relation to aim. Most of the strength and weaknesses of the study are discussed. Well structured.

Very well- written discussion of main results in relation to aim. Strength and weaknesses and potential bias of the study are discussed and put into a new perspective. Excellent structure.

Conclusions

(10)

Missing or not satisfactorily related to results or not relevant to aim. Doesn’t provide specific recommendations.

States some findings but not all or not main findings.  Conclusions are not backed by evidences. Makes recommendation but doesn’t

Somewhat related to the main findings. Little evidence to support conclusion. 

States main findings. Well formulated. Findings lead to the conclusion in a logical manner. However, some evidence given to support the conclusions is weak.

States main findings and its implication in short- and long-term perspective. Very well formulated. Strong evidence is given to support the conclusions. All the main issues

provide any supporting information.

Recommendations are loosely based on information presented in the paper. 

Most of the main issues are addressed by the

recommendations. The information presented in the paper supports the recommendations.

are addressed by the

recommendations and supported by the information presented in the paper. 

References (as a whole) (5)

Missing, irrelevant, Sources are obsolete.

citation errors detract significantly from the paper.  No use of any reference management Software.

Some of the citation missing. Sources are not peer reviewed journal articles and are not cited by other scholars.

Very Inconsistent use of citations in both the text and reference section. Errors in the use of reference management software, e.g. Mendeley, Zotero. Detract substantially from the paper.

Satisfactory use of mostly adequate references in correct order. 

Only a handful of sources are peer-reviewed Journal articles published in last 10 years Sometimes Inconsistent use of citations in both the text and reference section. Few errors in the use of reference management software, e.g. Mendeley, Zotero.

Good use of relevant references properly referred in the text.  A considerable number of sources are peer-reviewed Journal articles published in last 5 years

Consistent format in both the text and reference section. occasional errors in the use of reference management software, e.g.

Mendeley, Zotero.

Clearly relevant references used, skilfully referred to in the text. 

Substantial number of sources are peer-reviewed Journal articles published in last 5 years.

All references in the correct order and the same format both in text and references.

Effective use of reference management software, e.g. Mendeley, Zotero. No error is noticed. 

Overall

Structure, formatting and

Presentation of the Paper 

(5)

Very poorly written. A number of typos,

grammatical and punctuation errors make the readability unclear. A very weak transitions between ideas and paragraphs. A major revision is required.

The paper is not well organised. Weak transitions between ideas and paragraphs. Inaccurate details are incorporated. Could have used a lot more editing as there are periodic errors in grammar, spelling and sentence structure.

The paper is fairly well drafted, flows well and organised. Only few details are provided. Adequate transitions between ideas and paragraphs. It could have used more editing as there are minimal spelling and grammar issues. 

Very well written. The ideas and content are presented clearly. Free from jargon. Some details may be lacking. Good transitions between paragraphs. Very few changes or additions required. 

Paper is extremely well written, concise and edited. The ideas and content are clearly articulated. No typos, grammatical or spelling errors. Excellent transitions between paragraphs. No revisions or changes; acceptable as is.