This document is to provide you with guidance as to how your literature review and research highlight will be assessed. Overall percentage mark for the literature review is the average of the sections (i), (ii) and (iii) - all sections are equally weighted.

Research Highlight

Mark Awarded:  Comment

< 40:    The highlight contains little to no structure, is boring and/or confusing to read. There is no figure

or discussion  of the  motivation  and  broader  impact  and  the  use  of scientific  language  is completely inappropriate (either being too basic or advanced) for the target audience of a ‘Chemistry World’ reader

40-59:  The text is not particularly engaging with some attempt to describe the motivation and impact of the research work but is poorly done. There is a figure present but its relevance is unclear. Work at the upper end of the range will describe the motivation/impact of the research with some deficiencies. A reasonable figure will be presented, but with some deficiencies.

60-69:  The highlight has properly identified the scientific aims of the research and set these in context with previous and current work. The summary has no technical mistakes, but the presentation of the research work is somewhat derivative from the literature or other sources. The figure is of a good standard but improvements could be made to the presentation or formatting.

70-79:  The highlight very clearly identified the scientific aims of the project and made clear the novelty and impact of the results. The content is original and non-derivative and the rationale for the research was  clearly  stated. The figure  is  relevant  to the work,  produced  by  the  student themselves and of high quality

80+:     The highlight satisfies all of the criteria above and is an extremely well-written, engaging review

that always uses an appropriate level of scientific language. The figure used is highly relevant to the text and clear to understand, with any text labels being of an appropriate size. Work at the higher end of the range is cleverly structured and could be published on the department webpage of ‘Chemistry World’ without revision. There is a professional quality figure, created by the student themselves. There is evidence of originality in how the information is conveyed to the target audience.

Literature Review

(i)         Relevance, Correctness and Breadth of Factual Information                      /100

Mark Awarded:  Comment

< 40:     None of the papers selected are relevant to the research question. Reflective commentary is

missing. There are entirely incorrect descriptions of papers and flawed scientific interpretation. The figure and paper descriptions are misleading to the reader.

40-59:  The review has some justification for the papers chosen but only one or two of the papers chosen are truly relevant for the work. There are some inaccuracies in the description of the work or factual mistakes and, as a reader, the review is difficult to follow. For work at the upper end of the range, roughly half of the chosen papers are relevant to the topic and roughly half the descriptions of the papers are unclear/factually inaccurate.

60-69:  The review has good justifications for the papers selected, with nearly all being relevant to the research question. The reflective commentary rationalises the choice well but not completely. There are very few factual errors or unclear descriptions

70-79:  The review meets all of the criteria above but all the papers are well justified in the reflective commentary and relevant to the main question. There are only very few factual errors and the description of all of the work being summarised is clear and easy to follow.

80+:     The review meets all of the criteria above but the justification of the papers chosen is excellent

and the justification in the research commentary is insightful. All papers used are highly relevant and the work makes use of chemical knowledge beyond the literature discussed to aid in the description or scientific interpretation of the work. For work at the upper end of the range the justification of the papers and the insight presented from the work is also novel.

(ii) Understanding and Analysis                                                                            /100

Mark Awarded:  Comment

< 40     The introduction and conclusions are very poor or not present at all. There is no critical analysis

or discussion of the literature and it is clear that the material has not been understood.

40-59:  The main features of the review (introduction, conclusion, critical analysis, discussion) are all present but not well done. There is some attempt to articulate a research question though not well  done  and  the  literature  is  described  with  only  minimal  critical  analysis  of  strengths, weaknesses and comparisons. The discussion is present but not all papers are linked to the research question and some are discussed out of context. A lack of understanding is present in some places. Work at the upper end of the range will include critical analysis for at least half the papers discussed.

60-69:  All parts of the review (introduction, conclusion, critical analysis, discussion) are relevant to the research  question  with  future   research  directions  also  described.   The  introduction  and conclusion put the research question in some context and some future research direction has been  identified.  There   may  be  weaknesses  in  the  critical  analysis,   but  there  is  some appreciation of the significance of the papers discussed and an attempt to analyse them in the context of the research question. There is demonstration of understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the papers.

70-79:  The review meets all of the criteria above but there is significant appreciation of the significant of the papers to the wider research context. The introduction and conclusions put the research question in context very well and the future research directions are reasonable. The critical analysis of the paper is strong and the discussion appreciates the significance of the papers to the research question very well. The reader is convinced the student understands the material well.

80+:     The review meets all of the above criteria and the future research direction identified is novel

and insightful. The critical analysis moves beyond summarising strengths and weaknesses but shows insight into the papers by drawing on scientific concepts beyond the scope of what has been review. The discussion demonstrates significant appreciation of the concepts and the introduction and conclusion are concise. Work at the upper end of the range offers significant new insights into the research area through the critical analysis of the papers reviewed. The discussion demonstrates a superior understanding of the material   e.g. through use of own figures and examples beyond the papers to explain chemical concepts.