ChemE 135 Journal Critique Rubric

Category % 1.00-1.25 1.50-1.75 2.00-2.25 2.50-3.00 5.00

Grade ● 92 – slightly worse ● 82 – slightly worse ● 74 – slightly worse ● 60 – bare minimum ● 0 – submission is of no value
● 95 – exactly as described ● 85 – exactly as described ● 76 – exactly as described ● 62 – slightly worse ● 10 – slightly worse
above above above ● 66 – exactly as described ● 30 – exactly as described
● 98 – slightly better ● 88 – slightly better ● 78 – slightly worse above above
● 100 – above and beyond ● 70 – slightly better ● 50 – slightly better

Introduction 10 ● Provided brief context or ● No context or background of ● Provided brief context or ● No context or background of N/A
background about the study the study background about the study the study
● Stated the overall objective of ● Stated the overall objective of ● Objective of the study was not ● Objective of the study was not
the study the study clearly identified stated

Methodology 20 ● Description of experimental ● Description of experimental ● Description of the ● Description of the ● Vague description of the
procedure is clear and concise procedure is clear and concise experimental procedure needs experimental procedure needs experimental procedure
● Presented enough detail for ● Presented enough detail for improvement improvement ● Not enough detail for study to
the study to be replicable the study to be replicable ● Provided some details helpful ● Provided some details helpful be replicable
● Included figures if necessary ● Included figures if necessary for replicating the study for replicating the study ● Did not explain data analysis
● Clearly explained data analysis ● Presented some description of ● Presented some description of ● Did not explain data analysis ● Contains unnecessary or trivial
techniques data analysis data analysis ● Contains unnecessary or trivial details
● No unnecessary or trivial ● Minimal unnecessary or trivial ● Minimal unnecessary or trivial details
details were included details details

Interpretation of 30 ● Important results were ● Important results were ● Not all results were analyzed ● A mere presentation of results ● A mere presentation of results
Findings completely discussed and completely discussed and ● Critique (i.e., agreement or ● No critique of the authors’ ● No critique of the authors’
analyzed analyzed disagreement) of the authors’ interpretation of results interpretation of results
● Critique (i.e., agreement or ● Critique (i.e., agreement or interpretations were not ● Pointed out generic sources of ● Did not point out sources of
disagreement) of the authors’ disagreement) of the authors’ always justified using relevant error that were not too error (if applicable) due to the
interpretations were justified interpretations were justified theory ● No suggested improvements methodology
using relevant theory or using relevant theory or ● Pointed out generic sources of to the methodology, ● No suggested improvements
literature literature error that were not too interpretation, nor data to the methodology,
● Pointed out relevant sources ● Pointed out relevant sources ● No suggested improvements processing interpretation, nor data
of error (if any) due to the of error (if any) due to the to the methodology, processing
methodology methodology interpretation, nor data
● Suggested improvements to ● No suggested improvements processing
the methodology, to the methodology,
interpretation, or data interpretation, nor data
processing processing

Assessment of 20 ● Compared the writing style to ● Commented on the writing ● Commented on the writing ● Generic comments on the ● Irrelevant comments on the
Author’s Writing those of similar literature style, but did not compare to style, but did not compare to writing style writing style
● Discussed the flow of similar literature similar literature ● Generic discussion on the flow ● Did not discuss the flow of
paragraphs and appropriate ● Discussed the flow of ● Discussed the flow of of paragraphs and appropriate paragraphs and appropriate
wording or language paragraphs and appropriate paragraphs and appropriate wording or language wording or language
● Found grammatical or wording or language wording or language ● Did not find grammatical or ● Did not find grammatical or
typographical errors (if any) ● Found grammatical or typographical errors (if typographical errors (if
typographical errors (if any) applicable) applicable)
● Suggested improvements to ● Suggested improvements to ● Did not find grammatical or ● No suggested improvements ● No suggested improvements
the writing (if applicable) the writing (if applicable) typographical errors (if to the writing (if applicable) to the writing (if applicable)
applicable)
● No suggested improvements
to the writing (if applicable)

Impact of Study 10 ● Explained significance or ● Explained significance or ● Did not explain significance or ● Did not explain significance or N/A
relevance of study relevance of study relevance of study relevance of study
● Connected the results of this ● Did not connect the results of ● Connected the results of this ● Did not connect the results of
study to related topics in this study to related topics in study to related topics in this study to related topics in
chemical engineering chemical engineering chemical engineering chemical engineering

References 10 ● At least three (3) credible, ● At least three (3) credible, ● At least three (2) credible, ● References were mostly ● References were mostly
non-website references non-website references non-website references websites websites
● Most references used to ● Some references used to ● Some references used to ● Few references used to justify ● Did not use references to
justify critique of literature justify critique of literature justify critique of literature critique of literature justify critique of literature
● Cited references were all ● Cited references were mostly ● Cited references were mostly ● Cited references were mostly ● Cited references were not
found in the text found in the text found in the text found in the text found in the text