CCEUB REVIEWER’S RUBRIC
Does the submission meet CCEUB expectations? | |||
Yes | Yes, with revisions |
No | |
1. SUBMISSION CONTENT | |||
1A. Is the submission relevant to CCEUB members? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
1B. Will the submission add value to the repository of teaching resources maintained by CCEUB? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
1C. Is the submission accompanied by clear goals and learning objectives? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
1D. If relevant, were appropriate methods of analysis used? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
1E. If relevant, are the submission’s conclusions suitable given the data presented? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
1F. Is the statement of educational impact appropriate? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
2. SUBMISSION WRITING / COMMUNICATION | |||
2A. Is the quality of the writing adequate? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
2B. If relevant, is the visual presentation of the submission adequate? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
3. SUBMISSION FORMAT | |||
3A. Are all references present? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
3B. Are references in CSE format? Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
3C. Are appropriate units and nomenclature used? (e.g. SI units, IUPAC naming system) Reviewer’s Comments: |
|||
Is a statement present in the author’s cover letter indicating the author has read and agrees with the CCEUB Author’s Agreement? Yes / No |