Individual student feedback on VetU project (uppsats) during DFM1 autumn 2011
Reviewer: _______________________________________________________________
Name of author (student)_______________________________________________
Aspect
Examples of “Pass”, valid
alternatives circled
Examples of “Fail”, valid
alternatives circled
Extent
 2 pages long
 More/less than 2 pages
Title
 Informative, reflects the
contens of the papers
 Title not informative, does not
reflect the content
Abstract
 Proper summation of the
contents of the paper
 Does not reflect the content
Introduction
part
(background)
 Adequate general
introduction to the theme
 Does not present an adequate
introduction to the theme
 Approximately one third to
half of the paper
 Too long/ too short
 Contains answers for the
questions completed in
literature searches
 Includes references to used
sources.
Summary
(referat) of
article
 Does not contain the answers to the
questions completed in the
literature searches
 Does not include references.
 Adequate summation of the
research article presented in a
clear and logical manner
 The findings in the research article
not summarized in a clear and
logical manner
 Approximately one third to
half of the paper
 Too long/ too short
 Includes reference to the
article summarized
Feedback to student
 Does not include reference to the
article summarized
1
Commentary/
reflection
(voluntary)


Table
 Contains official MeSH terms
that relate to the disease
 The MeSH terms are too general or
do not relate to the disease
 Table legend properly placed
and adequate
 Table legend is misplaced,
incomplete, or missing
 Table referred to in the text
 Table not referred to in the text
 The figure complements the
written contents
 The figure does not relate to the
contents
 Figure legend properly placed
and adequate
 Figure legend misplaced, incomplete
or missing
 Figure referred to in the text
 Figure not referred to in the text
 Source of the Figure
acknowledged
 Source of the Figure not
acknowledged
 Contains at least 5 relevant
references
 Insufficient references
Figure
References
 At least 2 original or review
articles
 Proper format in Vancouver
style
 Not enough original or review
articles
 Format of references does not
follow Vancouver style
2