Hello, dear friend, you can consult us at any time if you have any questions, add WeChat: daixieit

Criterion / Score band

Poor (0–39)

Acceptable (40–49)

Good (50–59)

Very Good (60–69)

Excellent (70–79)

Outstanding (80–100)

Introduction: Provides clear, compelling rationale with well-defined aims and strong contextualisation of the research problem (10%)

Introduction is incomplete or absent; aims are unclear or irrelevant; research problem poorly contextualised.

Introduction present but vague; aims stated weakly; limited context or justification for the research.

Clear introduction; aims defined; context provided though some aspects lack clarity or convincing justification.

Well-focused introduction with clearly articulated aims and good contextualisation; rationale is credible and relevant.

Strong, compelling introduction; aims are precise and well-motivated; research problem is well contextualised against relevant background.

Exceptionally clear and engaging introduction; aims are sharply defined and original; problem is excellently contextualised and motivates the research persuasively.

Theory and literature review: Provides a comprehensive, well-structured review of relevant literature, with critical insight and a clear articulation of the chosen theoretical perspective (20%)

Little or no engagement with relevant literature; inaccurate or irrelevant citations; no theoretical framing.

Literature coverage is basic and patchy; limited critical engagement; theoretical perspective stated but not developed.

Adequate review of key literature; some critical evaluation; theoretical perspective identified and linked to research aims.

Good, well-organised review showing critical engagement and synthesis; theoretical perspective is clearly applied to the research question.

Thorough, well-structured review with critical synthesis of literature; theory is used thoughtfully to frame the research problem.

Outstanding, authoritative review that synthesises literature insightfully; advances understanding and applies theory innovatively and coherently to the research problem.

Research design and methods: Methodology and methods are rigorously justified, clearly explained, and well-aligned with research aims (20%)

Methodology missing or inappropriate; methods poorly described; alignment with aims absent; serious validity/reliability concerns.

Methodology described but justification weak; methods acceptable but not well aligned or lacking key detail.

Methodology appropriate and described clearly; adequate justification and reasonable alignment with aims; some limitations acknowledged.

Well-justified methodology and clearly explained methods with good alignment to aims; data collection and analysis logic is sound.

Methodology is rigorous and choices are persuasively justified; methods clearly operationalised and well-aligned with research objectives; limitations addressed.

Exemplary methodological design: innovative or highly rigorous approach, thorough justification, excellent alignment with aims, and clear handling of validity, reliability and ethics.

Findings: Demonstrates quality and depth of data analysis, clearly presented, and showcasing rich insights into the research question (20%)

Data/analysis absent, incorrect, or superficial; presentation unclear; findings do not address research aims.

Findings reported but analysis is descriptive or limited; presentation is basic and offers little insight.

Findings clearly presented with competent analysis that addresses the research aims; some meaningful insights reported.

Strong analysis with clear presentation; findings are insightful and well-related to the research question.

Sophisticated, well-structured analysis that yields rich, convincing insights; results presented clearly and logically.

Outstanding analytical depth and clarity; findings are original, highly insightful, rigorously derived and compellingly presented.

Discussion and conclusion: Provides rich, insightful interpretation of findings, integrated well with theory and literature, leading to well-supported conclusions (20%)

No meaningful discussion; conclusions unsupported, inaccurate, or absent; fails to connect to literature/theory.

Discussion present but superficial; links to literature/theory weak; conclusions only partially supported.

Discussion interprets findings appropriately and links to literature/theory; conclusions generally supported though may lack depth.

Thoughtful discussion that integrates findings with literature/theory and yields well-supported conclusions and implications.

Strong, insightful discussion that situates findings within the literature, critically evaluates implications and limitations, and presents well-founded conclusions.

Exceptional synthesis: interpretations are deep and original, integrate theory and evidence seamlessly, and produce persuasive, well-argued conclusions and implications for research/policy/practice.

Structure, style and referencing: All parts of the research report are logically structured, use clear and straightforward language, and are fully and correctly referenced (10%)

Poor organisation and style; writing unclear with many errors; referencing missing or frequently incorrect.

Structure and style are adequate but inconsistent; some writing errors; referencing contains several errors or omissions.

Generally clear structure and professional tone; occasional language or referencing errors.

Clear, logical organisation; consistent academic style; referencing accurate with minor errors.

Very well-structured and polished writing; referencing consistently correct and comprehensive.

Impeccable organisation, style and presentation; writing is concise and highly readable; referencing flawless and complete.