Title,Abstract &Keywords $10\%$Does not comply.Few elements.Almost all elements.Basics elements.Accurate reflection of paper.Excellent linkages.Introduction & backgroundWhat is the context, is the problem clear, is there evidence of the problem? It is coherent and forms a research argument? $15\%$Vague, random, unrelated material.Barely mention of the problem, with a collection of disparate points.Touches on the problem with little context, just reproduces what is known about the topic.More structure, with some looseness$/$digressionsWell$-$structured and focused.Highly focused, coherent and forms research argument.LiteratureIs there evidence of having read widely, use of appropriate and up to date sources to build research argument? $15\%$No evidence of reading, no use of theory not even implicitly.Little evidence of reading, implicit hint at some knowledge of theory.Limited evidence of reading, very basic theories mentioned but not critiqued or well used.Some reading evident, but confined to core texts.Good reading, good range of theories included that links to the research argument.Excellent range of relevant reading, well$-$chosen theories that builds solid research argument.MethodologyWhat research design and methods were applied in the paper?$10\%$No research methods.Some evidence that method$($s$)$ were consideredLimited substance of methods used.Basic description of methods.Structured research design and methods linked to solving problem.Excellent grasp of research design and methods applied correctly.ResultsDoes the results link to the problem, is it analysed correctly? $10\%$Vague assertions about issues.Largely descriptive with no analysis of central issues. Limited insight into issues around the problem.Some good analysis of issues and how it relates to the problem.Good, detailed analysis.Range of issues identified, discussed fully and linked to the problem.DiscussionAre the results and literature correctly integrated to give an informed opinion on the problem? $15\%$Dumping results with no critical analysis.Very little integration of literature and data.Some integration and analysis but weak. Little insight own research voice.Good integration with limited research voice. Good critical integration linked to research voice.Full critical integration with substantial individual insight and research voice.Recommendation & ConclusionWhat are the practical implications, what are the future implications? Your final voice. $15\%$Vague and unrelated to research problem.Very little linkage to research problem.Limited insight into implication related to the problem.Some good synthesis of implication related to the problem.Good critical integration between implication and research problem.Noteworthy scientific research contributionReferencesHarvard style for in$-$text citation and referencing. $10\%$