REVIEW OF MASTER THESIS
Author of the thesis:
Title of the thesis:
Definition of research scope, the aim and research
questions
0
1
2
3
4
5
The importance and relevance of the topic is well substantiated? Has the research scope been defined? What is the
theoretical and practical significance of the topic? Is the main probleem well defined and specified? Is the aim of the
thesis well formulated and research tasks defined? Are the tasks set to solve the problem adequate and objective? Do
the set tasks permit to achieve the objectives and solve the defined probleem?
Argumentation:
Theoretical framework
0
1
2
3
4
5
Whether the thesis is relevant to the topic and set goals? Have all the important issues related to the topic approached
as thoroughly as necessary? Was a sufficient number of relevant scientific theories
used and were they used correctly? Are there any issues presented that are not related to the topic? Does the student
demonstrate skills in making use of literature and different sources of information?
Argumentation:
Literature review
0
1
2
3
4
5
Does the thesis contain appropriate and timely scientific publications and professional literatuure? Is the amount of
references sufficient to give a reasonable and adequate overview of the topic? Is the scope of reviews broad enough (is
not dominated by the work of a single authors) to make adequate comparisons? Is the theoretical material well
related to empirical material? Has the author used a comparative approach to the topic/problem?
Argumentation:
Structure
0
1
2
3
4
5
Is the thesis a wellorganised logical whole? Does the structure of the thesis show a logical approach to the topic and
support to achieve the set objectives? (There is a consistent and clear chapter structure that is relevant to the main
question). Are the chapters and sections provided with suitable titles? Do the chapter titles correspond the content?
Are the volumes of separate chapters justified?
Argumentation:
Research methods
0
1
2
3
4
5
Are the methods adopted appropriate to the subject matter? Does the student demonstrate ability to apply the chosen
methods? Has the research been carried out carefully and adequately? Are the methods and techniques used properly
described? Are the data correctly collected and analysed? Is the amount of data collected sufficient to make adequate
conclusions and generalizations? Have the results been sufficiently tested by statistical analyses?
Argumentation:
Analysis and conclusions
0
1
2
3
4
5
Is the analysis consistent with the purpose of the work and with the research problem? Do the results answer the
research questions presented? Does the thesis present wellfounded conclusions drawn from the results? Are the
results of the research and conclusions clearly and logically presented? Is a comparison made between the results and
published data? Are the results placed in a broader context? Are generalisations supported by facts?
Argumentation:
Appearance of the thesis
0
1
2
3
4
5
Is the overall appearance of the thesis appropriate? Are the given formatting rules and guidelines been followed (the
formatting of tables, figures and drawings)? (For general guidance on formatting the student has to follow APA style)
Has the student followed the basic rules of citation and referencing? Is the thesis written in coherent, formal
style?.Does the thesis contain any grammatical or spelling errors that complicate reading? Is the use of definitions and
concepts correct?
Argumentation:
Summary of evaluation
0
1
2
3
4
5
(The total grade will be based on previous evaluations) Is the thesis written in compliance with norms for academic
and scholarly expression, does it meet the requirements for master thesis? What is the level of work (as assessed by
the novelty of the approach,the theoretical and practical importance of presented views and proposals in the work)?
What are the strengths of the work? Does the thesis make an original contribution to the practical knowledge within
the field of study? What kind of substantive errors and deficiencies (if there are any) should be considered important
in evaluating the work? What can be considered the author's contribution?
The reviewer’s observations and suggestions:
Questions to the defender
1.
2.
3.
Reviewer (incl. titles):
Signature:
Date of review:
Grading criteria
Grade
Research
Problem
Challenge
Definition and
limiting
Freshness of
research and
its point of
view
Theoretical
Part
Relevance of the
theoretical
framework
Accuracy of
concepts,
assumptions and
hypotheses
Mastery of
relevant
literature
Use of sources
Methods/Empirical
Part/ Material
Choice of methods
Methods for
collecting the
material
Representativeness
of the material
Command of
methods needed in
the analysis
Presenting the
material in an
explicit form
Connection between
the analysis and
theory
Research
Results
Results,
presenting,
evaluating and
interpreting the
results
Drawing
conclusions
Meeting the
objectives of
the research
General
Evaluation
Coherence,
structure’s
clarity and
command of the
process
Researcher’s
personal
contribution to
the work
Presentation
Use of
references, use
of tables,
relevance of the
bibliography
and appendices,
linguistic form,
finishing touch
and layout
5
Genuinely
challenging and
innovative
research topic,
adequate
limiting of the
subject,
accurately
defined and
well reasoned
research
problem, fresh
point of view
Deep knowledge
of theories, well
reasoned
theoretical
starting point,
clear
comprehension
of concepts,
critical use of
sources,
extensive
discussion, clear
and in-depth
analytical
approach.
Justified choice of
method, excellent
command of
methods, extensive
and relevant
material, deep,
thorough and
systematic handling
of the material, clear
connection to the
theoretical
framework.
New and
interesting
results are
produced in the
research.
Research
objectives are
met.
Conclusions are
innovative and
professional.
Readable,
stylistically
excellent text;
structure is clear
and consistent,
layout flawless
Thesis
illustrates
maure and
creative
thinking,
analytical
approach – a
genuine
researcher’s
point of view.
Interesting and
fresh research
topic, well
reasoned
limiting of the
subject,
accurate
definition of
the research
problem and
appropriate
point of view
Credible
theoretical skills,
viable
theoretical
starting point of
the work, skilful
use of concepts,
well argused
discussion,
credible use of
sources, good
overall
image.
Viable choice of
method, good
methodological
skills, extensive and
appropriate
material, discussion
accurate, connection
to the theory clear.
New results are
produced in the
work.
Objectives of
the research
are met.
Conclusions are
clear and
justified in a
creative way
and indicate
good com mand
of the topic.
Readable,
stylistically
appropriate text,
flawless
language, clear
and consistent
structure, layout
flawless. The
thesis illustrates
creative thinking
and capability of
independ ent
thinking and
understanding
Research topic
Good knowledge
Work is done
Results are
Relatively fluent
4
3
relatively
interesting and
fresh.
Definition
viable,
appropriate
limiting of the
topic.
of theories,
essential
concepts
comprehended,
assumptions and
hypotheses in
line with the
definition of the
research
problem, source
material
relatively
extensive,
sources are used
appropriately.
correctly
methodologically
and the empirical
part is completed
faultlessly. Material
is fairly epresenting.
Connection between
the analysis and the
theory.
objectively put,
potential for
interpretation
is well
deployed, and
objective of the
research is
fulfilled.
text, stylistically
fairly readable,
language fairly
flawless. Clear
structure, layout
decent. The
thesis illustrates
good command
of the
techniques
needed in
doping research.
2
Research topic
fairly
conventional,
definition
relatively clear,
point of view
customary.
Theoretical
framework
somewhat
unclear and
narrow.
Concepts,
hypotheses and
assumptions
defined partly in
a clear way.
Amount of
relevant
literature
comparatively
low. Genuinely
critical touch is
missing.
Methodological
choice fairly
justifiable, method
applied
mechanically,
problems with the
compatibility of
method, material
and research
problem. Handling
of the material
partly unbalanced.
Research
questions are
partly
unanswered,
potential for
interpretation
partly left
unused.
Conclusions
fairly simple.
Relatively
readable text,
style sometimes
obscure.
Inconsistencies
in the thesis,
structure not
always justified,
personal input
comparatively
low. Ambiguity
in the use of
references.
1
Research topic
conventional,
insufficient
limiting leaves
the topic
unclear,
considerable
inconsistency
in the
definition.
Theoretical
framework
narrow.
Insufficient
definition of
concepts,
assumptions and
hypotheses
remain vague
and their links to
the topic are not
viable. Limited
literature,
possibly only
domestic
sources.
Problems with
critical approach
to sources.
Method impossible
to justify and/or
apply. Problems
with methodological
skills make the
handling of material
difficult.
Unprocessed
material impedes
the analysis.
Problems with
conjoining analysis
and theory.
Research
results
questionable,
simple or
inadequate.
Problems with
meeting the
research
objective.
Conclusions are
missing or do
not correspond
to the purpose
of the study.
Considerable
inconsistencies
in the thesis,
structure not
justified, text
clumsy,
language
unfinished in
places,
deficiencies in
references,
attention not
paid to
technicalities,
layout
unfinished.