Criteria Exemplary (17-20)
Title and Descriptive and informative title
Background to used. Title indicative of a grant
Proposed Study proposal – indicating the nature of
(15%) work to be completed.
Introduction proves the key
background material required to
understand the proposal.
A concise overview of the important
main findings of the key paper is
presented
Demonstrated understanding of the
paper proposal is based on.
Background data is well presented
and explained.
Figure(s) used represent an original
effort and highlights the student's
knowledge of the background
science and/or model.
Figures and/or tables provided are
clearly labelled with appropriate
captions.
Hypothesis and Clear and concise statement of the
Aims (15%) overall aims of the proposed study is
provided.
Accomplished (14-16)
Descriptive and informative title
used.
Attempt to provide the key
background material to the proposal
but requires better organisation
and/or more clarity.
A reasonably concise overview of
the important, main findings of the
key paper is presented accurately
and reasonably clearly.
Demonstrated understanding of the
paper proposal is based on.
Possibly a little verbose and/or could
be written clearer.
Background data is reasonably well
presented and explained.
Figure(s) used are original or
adapted combining information
from one or two sources and
highlights the student's knowledge
of the background science and/or
model.
Figures and/or tables provided are
reasonably clearly labelled with an
appropriate caption.
Written in appropriate future-tense
format and a concise style.
Satisfactory (10-13) Unacceptable (<10)
Title not particularly informative – Title missing or gives a false
could better describe the nature of impression of the proposal topic.
the work to be completed.
Title written as a statement of fact
Introduction misses the key rather than as a proposal.
background material to understand
the proposal and/or elaborates on Lack of understanding/clarity in
the less important/relevant aspects. describing background to the
practical work.
Some misunderstanding of the
techniques employed. No summary provided of
background data to the proposed
An overview of the important main study.
findings of the key paper is
presented which is largely accurate. Figure(s) are absent or simply a cut
and paste from an existing source.
Figure(s) used are largely an
adaptation from an existing source Figure not clearly labelled with more
and may not be the most and/or lacks detail in the caption.
appropriate summary of the
background material or new model
described.
Figure(s) could be better labelled
with more and/or appropriate detail
in the caption.
Missing some key elements and/or No clear statement of aims.
important information.
Aims/hypotheses are not testable.
 Where appropriate testable
hypotheses are defined.
Sub-aims are defined which relate to
the over-arching aims.
Where appropriate aims can be
completed parallel to each other
rather than sequentially
Almost all key information is
described.
Largely appropriate use of
references.
Correct units and significant figures.
Correct formatting of chemical
symbols and units.
Occasionally strays into present
tense and sentences are not always
complete.
Some irrelevant information
present.
Incorrect units and significant
figures.
Would need more detail for
someone to understand methods
employed.

References may be inappropriate –

Approach and An overview of a logical approach is
Methodology (20%) provided which matches the aims of
the proposal.
A realistic timeline for the proposed
work is described.
An appropriate experimental
model/system is described.
Where appropriate the
experimental design is outlined
which explains how the approach
will limit ambiguity.
Significance, A persuasive, logical approach is
Innovation and taken to appeal for funding.
National Benefit
(10%)
An overview of a logical approach is
provided which matches the aims of
the proposal.
A timeline for the proposed work is
described.
The experimental model/system is
described.
An attempt to incorporate an
effective experimental design is
outlined.
A logical approach is taken to appeal
for funding.
not original sources or for the wrong
techniques.
An overview of the overall approach
provided but could be more logical
and better match the aims of the
proposal.
Some indication of the time for the
proposed work is described.
The experimental model/system
could have been chose better
The experimental design provided is
flawed/missing some details.
Some research has been undertaken
to highlight the problem and
implications of a solution.
The overview of the approach is
illogical and/or missing crucial
details. Does not match the aims of
the proposal.
No indication of the time for the
proposed work is described.
The experimental model/system is
not described or inappropriate
No details of experimental design
are provided.
There is no attempt or very weak
attempt to provide a reason for
undertaking the work.
 Research has been undertaken to
highlight the problem and
implications of a solution.
The severity/importance of the
problem is addressed and the
student understands the significance
of potential findings towards the
problem.
Budget Budget presented is realistic, well
10% researched, and complete and
provides adequate justification for
costs.
Also includes conference and
publication costs.
Lay Proposal A concise lay proposal is provided
10% which summarises well the main
points of the grant – including
overview of problem, aims and
general methodology. Should be
easy to understand for a non-
specialist reader.
References (10%) Appropriate references used
throughout.
Not overly reliant on any one
source.
Follows guidelines on in-text
citations and reference list.
Some research has been undertaken
to highlight the problem and
implications of a solution.
The severity/importance of the
problem is addressed.
Budget is mainly realistic and has
been researched.
Justification is provided for costs.
Also includes conference and
publication costs.
A concise lay proposal is provided
which provide a general summary of
the main points of the grant,
including overview of problem, aims
and general methodology. Generally
understandable for a non-specialist
reader.
Mostly appropriate references used
throughout.
Possibly overly reliant on a
particular source.
Follows guidelines on in-text
citations and reference list.
Budget lacks realism and needs
more research.
Some justification is provided for
some costs.
May miss conference and
publication costs
A lay proposal is provided which
provide a general summary of some
of the main points of the grant.
May miss a few of these elements;
overview of problem, aims and
general methodology.
Difficult to understand for a non-
specialist reader.
Mostly appropriate references used
throughout but possibly one or two
failures to identify original sources.
Overly reliant on a particular source.
Some errors or inconsistencies in
following the guidelines on in-text
citations and the reference list.
No budget provided or budget is
incomplete with no justification
provided.
No attempt at a genuine lay
proposal is made.
Copy and paste of information from
other sections.
Lack of references and/or being
reliant on one review for the entire
article.
Failure to provide references or
reference list and citations
incorrect/inconsistent.
Using textbooks and/or lab manual
or otherwise failing to cite original
sources (e.g. webpages rather than
original papers).

Overall Merit and Followed formatting guidelines.
Academic Integrity Attention to detail with formatting.
of Scientific Writing
(10%) Inclusion of original and/or well
adapted figures.
Clearly proof-read and free from
typographical errors.
Correctly referenced with any
externally derived figures also
referenced.
Excellent word usage, accurate
grammar, writing shows clarity,
conciseness and relevance.
Excellent use of scientific language
Followed formatting guidelines.
A few minor typographical errors in
spelling and grammar.
Figures okay but would be clearer
with more detailed labelling and
captions.
Word usage and grammar are
accurate, writing shows clarity,
reasonable conciseness and
relevance.
Appropriate use of scientific
language.
Mostly Followed formatting
guidelines or at least adopted a
consistent approach.
Some minor typographical errors in
spelling and grammar.
Some information unclear due to
formatting issues.
Some issues with a few of the
following:
- Using the incorrect tense in a
section or swapping tense within
a section.
- Poor sentence construction –
failure to proof-read.
- Not defining abbreviations.
- Not using italics for species
names and other uncommon
foreign (latin) words.
Wording and grammatical mistakes
are evident, some conciseness.
Adequate use of scientific language.
Poor paraphrasing bordering on
plagiarism.
Failed to follow guidelines on in-text
citations and reference list.
Inconsistent referencing style used.
Poor formatting throughout and/or
failure to follow template guidelines.
Lack of proof-reading with spelling
and grammatical errors.
Sentences do not make sense.
Frequently issues with many of the
following:
- Using the incorrect tense in a
section or swapping tense within
a section.
- Poor sentence construction –
failure to proof-read.
- Not defining abbreviations.
- Not using italics for species
names and other uncommon
foreign terms.
Frequent language and grammatical
errors, lacks clarity and conciseness.
Poor use of scientific language.