Academic Year: 2022-23
PEER REVIEW AND MARKING PROFORMA FOR FORMAL LABORATORY REPORTS
Marking Scale:
5
4
3
2
1
0
Excellent
Good
Satisfactory
Minimum acceptable/Pass
Poor/Below acceptable standard
Unacceptable/No relevant content
Name (author of the report)
Elliot Ogilvy
Final Mark
61
Sections
Abstract
No
Criteria
1
Does the abstract provide an overview of the
main points of the report?
Highest: the abstract is concise and provides
a clear overview of the work undertaken and
of key results.
Lowest: the abstract/summary is poorly
structured and fails in highlighting the key
information presented in the report.
Marks (0 to
5)
4
Please justify your mark and
provide actionable feedback
A good abstract which is clear and
provides and overview of the work
undertaken and of key results.
The abstract could have been more
concise, key results were discussed
rather than summarised.
1|Page
Academic Year: 2022-23
2
Is the abstract length appropriate (200
words)?
4
Slightly overlong abstract, word count
was 275 words. Generally acceptable
but could have provided more succinct
presentation of key results.
Highest: the abstract communicates the main
points in an appropriate number of word
(approximately 200 words).
Lowest: the abstract is significantly too long
(>300 words) or too short (<100 words).
Introduction
3
Is the motivation for the experiment clearly
conveyed?
3
Satisfactory, the motivation for the
experiment was mentioned but was
not explicitly conveyed.
Highest: the motivation is concisely and
clearly stated.
Lowest: No motivation is provided.
4
Is the introduction concise and relevant to the
context of the experiment?
2
Minimal, there was an introduction.
The information presented was
relevant in terms of the experiment but
there wasn’t really any discussion of
the wider context of the experiment.
Highest: excellent introduction with an
effective presentation of the wider context.
Lowest: Ambiguous or irrelevant presentation
of the wider context.
5
Can a student from another science
department (e.g. psychologist) understand
the motivation based on the introduction?
Highest: concise, clear, jargon free and easy
to understand introduction.
Lowest: full of jargon and hard to follow.
1
I don’t think a student from another
science department would be able to
understand the motivation for the
experiment based on the introduction.
I struggled to understand was written,
the jargon used was not explained.
2|Page
Academic Year: 2022-23
Theory
6
Is the provided background theory sufficient
to understand the experiment, results and
discussion?
5
Excellent. The background theory
outlined in the report was appropriate
to the experiment, results and
discussion and was clearly explained
with just the right amount of detail. I
enjoyed reading the theory section of
the report.
Highest: very relevant and proper theoretical
background without unnecessary detail.
Lowest: Incomplete and unclear background
or excessive detail that is irrelevant to the
experiment.
Experimental
Methods
7
Is the experimental procedure explained
properly? Would it allow you to replicate the
work?
4
A generally good explanation of the
experimental procedure. I think I would
mainly be able to replicate the work,
noted further explanation of the
calibration process could have been
provided.
Highest: Very clearly explained procedure
with relevant details.
Lowest: Not enough detail provided or
excessive irrelevant detail.
Presentation of
Results
8
Are figures clear and legible and presented
with appropriate font size?
Highest: figures are clearly presented and
labelled; all labels are clearly legible with
appropriate font size.
Lowest: Figures are poorly labelled, font sizes
are too small and figures are generally untidy,
unclear and inconsistent.
1
Poorly presented figures, was unable
to interpret data in the graphs
presented in the report as the incorrect
scale had been applied.
Only two figures were labelled. Three
of the figures presented seemed
incomplete.
3|Page
Academic Year: 2022-23
Results
9
Are figure captions descriptive and selfcontained? Without reading the text are you
able to understand what data/diagram the
figures present?
2
Minimal standard, captions were very
short and did not provide a clear
description of the data/diagram of the
figure presented.
Highest: Clear and descriptive captions; the
combined captions and figures are
understandable.
For two of the figures presented it was
necessary for me to read the text to
understand what the figures.
Lowest: No acceptable captions provided.
10.
Are the results presented in a way which is
relevant to the experiment’s motivation?
3
Satisfactory, the results did indicate
the motivation of the experiment. Not
clear that all the results presented
were relevant and in some parts the
data could have been organised
better.
Highest: The results are aligned with the
motivation of the experiment and will support
the discussion.
Lowest: No relevant results or very
disorganised data and results.
11.
Are the results described clearly and
unambiguously and in appropriate detail?
Highest: Results are described clearly in
appropriate technical detail.
5
Excellent, the results were described
clearly in appropriate technical detail.
There was no ambiguity.
Lowest: Results are poorly described, and
technical language is not used.
4|Page
Academic Year: 2022-23
Discussion
12.
Are suitable references cited to support the
discussion?
1
Poor citation of references, irrelevant
use of reference which did not relate to
the discussion and it was unclear why
these had been used. Inconsistent
referencing.
Highest: Very good use of relevant
references to justify and support the
experimental results.
Lowest: No use of resources; or
inconsistency between the discussion and
references cited; or excessive used of
irrelevant references.
13.
Does the discussion interpret the results
correctly? Does the interpretation make
correct use of the theory presented earlier?
Where appropriate, are any unexpected
results explained?
4
Good discussion of results, the
interpretation of results was
scientifically sound and made
reference to relevant theory. Although I
thought the point on forces could have
been clearer.
Highest: discussion and interpretation are
fully justified and related back to the theory
presented. Any inconsistencies are
explained.
Lowest: there is no relevant discussion or the
interpretation is incorrect and unrelated to
theory.
14.
Are appropriate recommendations made for
future work? Are the recommendation made
feasible and justified by this work?
Highest: Specific recommendations made for
future work; recommendations are justified by
this work.
5
Excellent, the person writing the report
demonstrated that they understood the
work undertaken and made
recommendations for future work
which were well argued and were
feasible.
5|Page
Academic Year: 2022-23
Lowest: No further work is suggested, or
suggestions are not relevant to the context of
the experiment.
Conclusion
15.
Are the conclusions sensible, scientifically
sound and based on the results and
discussion?
2
Acceptable, while the conclusion is
scientifically sound (i.e. correct for the
most part) it is not clear how the
conclusion outlined relates to the
earlier discussion of the results.
Highest: Excellent conclusions that are
aligned with results and discussion.
The conclusion seemed incomplete.
Lowest: Poor, irrelevant or incorrect
conclusions that do not reflect the results and
discussion of the report.
16.
Are key findings and observations clearly
contextualised in the conclusions?
2
Acceptable, there is reference to
observations made during the
experiment and evidence of some
understanding.
Highest: The conclusions are well written and
demonstrate an understanding of the
experiments performed and the supporting
theory.
Lowest: The conclusions are poorly written
and lack evidence of having understood the
experiments.
17.
Is the length of the conclusions appropriate?
Highest: conclusions are of an appropriate
length (approximately 200-300 words).
1
Poor, the conclusion was just one
sentence. The report ended abruptly.
Lowest: Conclusions are very short (less than
150 words) or too long (more than 350
words).
6|Page
Academic Year: 2022-23
References
18.
Are references properly formatted?
5
Excellent, all references were properly
formatted according to academic
conventions, could not fault.
Highest: All references are formatted
according to academic conventions.
Lowest: References are incomplete and have
inconsistent formatting.
Overall quality and
readability
19.
Does the report contain grammatical errors or
typos?
3
Potentially the report was written in a
hurry. There were a number of errors
in the report (repeated words, spelling
mistakes) which indicated that the
author did not fully proof-read the
document before submission, maybe
they were in a rush.
Highest: A well written report without
grammatical errors or typos that makes use
of good technical English.
Lowest: The report is poorly written with
numerous typos and grammatical errors,
resulting in a report that is hard to read.
20.
How clearly is the report structured? Is the
structure appropriate to the work presented?
Despite these errors the report was
generally readable.
4
Overall the structure of the report was
good, although parts of the discussion
section seemed a little disjointed.
Highest: Very clearly structured and
appropriate to the work.
Lowest: Very poorly structured.
TOTAL MARK (add up marks for each question) (max. 100)
61
7|Page