ASHLOCK EDUCATION SOCIETY

SPICER ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY, PUNE

RESEARCH POLICY

 

Spicer Adventist University (SAU) strongly believes in appreciating teaching and research for the growth of the students and the progress of the institution in academia. For this reason, the university initiated the Office of Research and Innovation to establish the research culture within the university for development in research-related activities. For smooth functioning of the research work at SAU, a thoroughly studies research policy is established.

 

The university complies with the fact that ethical practice is essential in any form of academic activity. Violations to basic ethics will affect the value and credibility of the author and the work done. Hence, all academic activity must abide by the ethical guidelines as set by Spicer Adventist University.

 

Purpose

Spicer Adventist University has laid down guidelines to promote academic integrity and prevent plagiarism from enhancing awareness and ethical conduct in research.

 

Scope

The research ethics policy applies to all researchers pursuing research in the university and outside.

 

Ethical Principles

Researchers must abide by the following principles at all stages of the research lifecycle. This includes the planning stage, applying for funding, the conduct, and later stages of the project, such as dissemination and impact activities.

 

1. Researchers must respect the rights, interests, dignity of participants and related persons in research.

 

1. Research must be undertaken in accordance with any relevant common law or legislation.

 

1. Full informed consent should usually be obtained from participants to enable participants to take part voluntarily. Consent should be given freely without force or coercion.

 

1. Researchers have an obligation to protect research participants wherever possible from significant harm consequent upon the research.

 

1. The confidentiality of the information supplied by research participants and any agreement to grant anonymity to respondents should be respected.
2. Care must be taken with collecting, handling, and storing sensitive, classified, and/or personal data. Such data should be kept secure and protected from unauthorized access. Particular care should be taken to ensure that human data cannot be linked back to individuals unless authorized persons. All sensitive, classified, and /or personal data must be disposed of appropriately according to legal and funder requirements.

 

1. Both the design of research and its conduct should ensure integrity, quality and provide benefits that outweigh potential risk or harm.

 

1. Research shall be undertaken subject to the principle of academic independence. Where any conflicts of interest or partiality arise, these must be clearly stated prior to obtaining ethical approval.

 

1. The same high ethical standards shall apply wherever in the world the research is being undertaken.

 

1. The principal investigator and the research team shall be responsible for determining what ethical issues emerge from the proposed project and for obtaining ethical approval of the project.
2. All research involving human participants is subject to ethical approval.

 

1. Research that does not involve humans but raises ethical issues or concerns is also subject to ethical approval.

 

1. Researchers are responsible for ensuring the project is undertaken as approved by the University research ethics approval process and in compliance with any legal or organizational requirements.

 

(n) Any significant divergence from the approved project must be subject to further ethical approval, and the researcher is responsible for acquiring further ethics approval before continuing with the research.

 

NOTE:           THE FOLLOWING POLICIES APPLY ONLY TO ALL THE REGULAR FACULTY MEMBERS AND STUDENTS OF SPICER ADVENTIST UNIVERSITY (SAU).

 

 

1. RESEARCH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

 

A1.      The Research Affairs Committee (RAC) shall be the administrative body that oversees any research work or research-related activity at Spicer Adventist University (SAU).

 

A2.      All policies related to research done at/by SAU shall be made and ratified by the RAC.

 

A3.      All activities related to research done at/by SAU should secure the prior approval of the RAC.

 

A4.      The RAC shall comprise of the following members:

 

Vice-Chancellor

Registrar

Chief Financial Officer

Controller of Examinations

Deans of Divisions of Study

Chief-Librarian

Faculty members (1 from each Division)

Research Director (Secretary)

 

 

1. ETHICS REVIEW BOARD

 

B1.      Ethics Review Board (ERB) shall be a regulatory body related to research. All empirical research done at/by SAU (faculty or student) involving human subjects, animals or living organisms, etc., as part of the academic program must be reviewed by the ERB.

 

B2.      A prospective researcher must secure approval of ERB before the collection of data.

 

B3.      The ERB may issue a waiver if it is convinced that particular research does not involve the subjects mentioned above.

 

B4.      The ERB shall comprise of the following members:

 

Hon’ble Vice-Chancellor

Registrar

Chief Financial Officer

Controller of Examinations

Deans of Divisions of Study

Research Director (Secretary)

 

1. RESEARCH ALLOWANCES

 

C1.      Paid writing leave of two weeks during the summer break shall be granted to the faculty of SAU to undertake research work and publication. Such an allowance shall be granted based on the following conditions:

 

C1-A. Submission of a clear research working plan such as a mini proposal or abstract shall be submitted along with the leave application for approval.

 

C1-B. Academic research articles worthy of conference presentation and publication be produced during the academic year. Such research work is also expected to be published in reputed, peer-reviewed journals or magazines recognized and listed by the UGC.

 

C2.      Research grants of up to Rs. 50,000/- can be availed by the Divisions of Studies of SAU. The RAC shall make the selection of candidates for such grants on the recommendation of the respective BoS upon receipt of a duly-filled application form. Grants shall be awarded purely on a merit basis.

 

C3.      A Research Appreciation Award of Rs. 5000/- shall be granted to faculty for each article published during a current academic year. This award shall be conferred during the SAU Research Recognition Day.

 

C4.      A Research Appreciation Award of Rs. 3000/- shall be granted to faculty for each scholarly/academic paper presentation at national and international academic conferences during a current academic year. This award shall be conferred during the SAU Research Recognition Day.

 

C5.      Research Appreciation Awards of Rs. 3000, Rs. 2000 and Rs. 1000 shall be awarded first, second, and third prizes respectively to students of each department for outstanding publishable research articles written during a current academic year. These awards shall be conferred during the SAU Research Recognition Day.

 

C6.      A maximum of 50% of the basic pay shall be granted as financial assistance toward travel and registration expense to faculty invited to present research papers at national conferences.

 

C7.      200% of the basic pay shall be granted as financial assistance toward travel and registration expense to faculty invited to present research papers at international conferences.

 

C8.      It shall be understood that unless authorized and/or sponsored by SAU, attendance to academic or non-academic conferences shall be discouraged.

 

 

FACULTY RESEARCH ALLOWANCES

 

The university encourages the teaching faculty for academic advancement. The meritorious candidates are provided funds from the “Ph.D. allowance” to initiate, continue, or complete research projects for career advancement. The university administration facilitates eligible to enroll for Ph.D. studies by providing financial assistance of Rs. 1, 55, 000/- to meet the expenses and an equal amount as bonus after completion of studies.

 

Due to COVID-19 pandemic, the researching faculties were restricted from travelling and therefore the funds were not allocated.

 

General Guidelines for Faculty Research Funds:

 

1. The faculty must be enrolled in a Ph.D. program. Funds are provided for enrollment in a program and to continue and complete the required research work for the program.

 

2. An application and proposal must be submitted requesting Faculty Research Funds available on the university website. (The form and section must be included in the website asap).

 

3. Upon submission, the application is forwarded to the board of management for approval.
4. The committee reserves the right to get external reviewers’ evaluations for any submitted proposal.
5. The maximum grant awarded for Ph.D. is ten times the annual salary norm/basic.
6. A concise report summarizing the outcomes of the grant-funded must be submitted to the Registrar fir approval by the board of management council. The Committee may study such reports on the utilization of the funds in the past in evaluating future grant applications. Faculty will be ineligible for further funding until this report is submitted.
7. The institution pays all the expenses for conferences and seminars.
8. The institution pays Rs. 31,000 for attending/paper presentation in an international conference.
9. An annual professional membership allowance of Rs. 1500-3000 is paid per year.

 

10. Each faculty who is awarded NET/SET receives a refund of the amount paid for the exam fees.

 

11. Faculty receives Rs.4,500/- towards purchasing equipments required that contribute towards continuing research.

 

12. Towards Professional Growth, an allowance equal to 15% of the salary is given to assistant professors.

 

13. Towards Professional Growth, an allowance equal to 30% of the salary is given to associate professors/professors.

*All of the above require committee approval from the following governing bodies: Management council, Statutory council, and Board of Studies.

 

 

 

 

1. POLICIES ON ACADEMIC INTEGRITY AND PLAGIARISM

 

D1. DEFINITIONS

 

“‘Academic Integrity is the intellectual honesty in proposing, performing and reporting any activity, which leads to the creation of intellectual property.”

 

“‘Plagiarism’ means the practice of taking someone else’s work or idea and passing them as one’s own.

 

D2. UGC GUIDELINES FOR PLAGIARISM PREVENTION

 

1. Duties of HEI:

 

Every HEI should establish the mechanism as prescribed in these regulations, enhance awareness about the responsible conduct of research and academic activities, promote academic integrity, and prevent plagiarism.

 

2. Awareness Programs and Training:

 

(a) HEI shall instruct students, faculty, researcher, and staff about proper attribution, seeking permission of the author wherever necessary, acknowledgment of source compatible with the needs and specificities of disciplines, and in accordance with rules, international conventions, and regulations governing the source.

 

(b) HEI shall conduct sensitization seminars/ awareness programs every semester on responsible research, thesis, dissertation, promotion of academic integrity and ethics in education for students, faculty, researcher, and staff.

 

(c) HEI shall:

 

1. Include the cardinal principles of academic integrity in the curricula of Undergraduate (UG)/Postgraduate (PG)/Master’s degree etc., as a compulsory course work/module.

 

1. Include elements of responsible conduct of research and publication ethics as a compulsory course work/module for Masters and Research Scholars.

 

• Include elements of responsible conduct of research and publication ethics in Orientation and Refresher Courses organized for faculty and staff members of the HEI.

 

1. Train students, faculty, researcher, and staff to use plagiarism detection tools and reference management tools.

 

1. Establish a facility equipped with modern technologies for the detection of plagiarism.

 

1. Encourage students, faculty, researcher, and staff to register on international researcher’s Registry systems.

 

3. Curbing Plagiarism

 

1. a) HEI shall declare and implement the technology-based mechanism using appropriate software to ensure that documents such as thesis, dissertation, publications, or any other such documents are free of plagiarism at the time of their submission.

 

1. b) The mechanism as defined at (a) above shall be accessible to all diligent research work, including students, faculty, researcher, staff, etc.

 

1. c) Every student submitting a thesis, dissertation, or any other such documents to the HEI shall submit an undertaking indicating that they have prepared the document and that it is their original work and free of any plagiarism.

 

1. d) The undertaking shall include that the document has been duly checked through a Plagiarism detection tool approved by the HEI.

 

1. e) HEI shall develop a policy on plagiarism and get it approved by its relevant statutory bodies/authorities. The approved policy shall be placed on the homepage of the HEI website.

 

1. f) Each supervisor shall submit a certificate indicating that the work done by the researcher under them is plagiarism-free.

 

1. g) HEI shall submit to INFLIBNET soft copies of all Masters, Research program’s dissertations and thesis within a month after the award of degrees for hosting in the digital repository under the “Shodh Ganga e-repository.”

 

1. h) HEI shall create Institutional Repository on the institute website, including dissertation/thesis/paper/publication and other in-house publications.

 

4. Similarity checks for exclusion from Plagiarism

 

The similarity checks for plagiarism shall exclude the following:

1. All quoted work reproduced with all necessary permission and/or attribution.
2. All references, bibliography, table of content, preface, and acknowledgments.

iii.        All generic terms, laws, standard symbols, and standards equations.

 

Note: The research work carried out by the student, faculty, researcher, and staff shall be based on original ideas, which shall include abstract, summary, hypothesis, observations, results, conclusions, and recommendations only and shall not have any similarities. It shall exclude common knowledge or coincidental terms, up to fourteen (14) consecutive words.

 

5. Levels of Plagiarism

 

Plagiarism would be quantified into the following levels in ascending order of severity for the purpose of its definition:

1. Level 0: Similarities up to 10% – Minor similarities, no penalty
2. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40%

iii.        Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%

1. Level 3: Similarities above 60%

 

6. Detection/Reporting/Handling of Plagiarism

 

Suppose any member of the academic community suspects with appropriate proof that a case of plagiarism has happened in any document. In that case, they shall report it to the Departmental Academic Integrity Panel (DAIP). Upon receipt of such a complaint or allegation, the DAIP shall investigate the matter and submit its recommendations to the HEI’s Institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP). HEI authorities can also take Suo Motu’s notice of an act of plagiarism and initiate proceedings under these regulations. Similarly, proceedings can also be initiated by the HEI based on the findings of an examiner. The IAIP will investigate all such cases.

 

7. Departmental Academic Integrity Panel (DAIP)

 

1. All Departments in HEI shall notify a DAIP whose composition shall be as given below:
2. Chairman – Head of the Department
3. Member – Senior academician from outside the department, to be nominated by the head of HEI.

 

1. Member – A person well versed with anti-plagiarism tools, to be nominated by the Head of the Department. The tenure of the members in respect of points ‘b’ and ‘c’ shall be two years. The quorum for the meetings shall be 2 out of 3 members (including the Chairman).

 

1. The DAIP shall follow the principles of natural justice while deciding about the allegation of plagiarism against the student, faculty, researcher, and staff.

 

iii. The DAIP shall have the power to assess the level of plagiarism and recommend penalty(ies) accordingly.

 

1. The DAIP, after investigation, shall submit its report with recommendation(s) on penalties to be imposed to the IAIP within 45 days from the date of receipt of complaint/initiation of the proceedings.

 

8. Institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP)

 

1. HEI shall notify an IAIP whose composition shall be as given below:

 

1. Chairman – Pro-VC/Dean/Senior Academician of the HEI.

 

1. Member – Senior Academician other than Chairman, to be nominated by the Head of HEI.

 

1. Member – One member nominated by the Head of HEI from outside the HEI

 

1. Member – A person well versed with anti-plagiarism tools, to be nominated by the Head of the HEI.

 

The Chairman of DAIP and IAIP shall not be the same. The tenure of the Committee members, including the Chairman, shall be three years. The quorum for the meetings shall be 3 out of 4 members (including the Chairman).

 

1. The IAIP shall consider the recommendations of DAIP.

iii.        The IAIP shall also investigate cases of plagiarism as per the provisions mentioned in these regulations.

1. The IAIP shall follow the principles of natural justice while deciding about the allegation of plagiarism against the student, faculty, researcher, and staff of HEI.
2. The IAIP shall have the power to review the recommendations of DAIP, including penalties with due justification.
3. The IAIP shall send the report after investigation and the recommendation on penalties to be imposed to the Head of the HEI within 45 days from the date of receipt of the recommendation of DAIP/complaint/initiation of the proceedings.

vii.       The IAIP shall provide a copy of the report to the person(s) against whom the inquiry report is submitted.

 

9. Penalties

 

Penalties in the case of plagiarism shall be imposed on students’ researchers and on researching faculty & staff of the HEI. Penalties are applicable only after academic misconduct on the individual has been established, without doubt, and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. An individual in question has been provided enough opportunity to defend themselves fairly or transparently.

 

1. Penalties in case of plagiarism in the submission of thesis and dissertations

 

The institutional Academic Integrity Panel (IAIP) shall impose a penalty considering the severity of the Plagiarism.

 

1. Level 0: Similarities up to 10% – Minor Similarities, no penalty.
2. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40% – Such students shall be asked to submit a revised script within a stipulated time not exceeding six months.

iii.        Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60% – Such students shall be debarred from submitting a revised script for one year.

1. Level 3: Similarities above 60% -Such student registration for that program shall be cancelled.

 

Note 1: Penalty on repeated plagiarism- Such student shall be punished for the plagiarism of one level higher than the previous level committed by him/her. If plagiarism of the highest level is committed, then the punishment for the same shall be operative.

 

Note 2: Penalty in the case where the degree/credit has already been obtained – If plagiarism is proved on a date later than the date of award of degree or credit as the case may be, then his/her degree or credit shall be put in abeyance for a period recommended by the IAIP and approved by the Head of the Institution.

 

2. Penalties in case of plagiarism in academic and research publications

 

1. Level 0: Similarities up to 10% – Minor similarities, no penalty.

 

1. Level 1: Similarities above 10% to 40%
2. i) Shall be asked to withdraw the manuscript.

 

III. Level 2: Similarities above 40% to 60%

1. i) Shall be asked to withdraw the manuscript.
2. ii) Shall be denied a right to one annual increment.

iii)       Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, M.Phil., Ph.D. Student/scholar for two years.

 

1. Level 3: Similarities above 60%
2. i) Shall be asked to withdraw the manuscript.
3. ii) Shall be denied a right to two successive annual increments.

iii)       Shall not be allowed to be a supervisor to any new Master’s, M.Phil., Ph.D. Student/scholar for three years.

Note 1: Penalty on repeated plagiarism – Shall be asked to withdraw manuscript and be punished for the plagiarism of one level higher than the lower level committed by him/her. If plagiarism of the highest level is committed, then the punishment for the same shall be operative. If level 3 offense is repeated, then the disciplinary action including suspension/termination as per service rules shall be taken by the HEI.

Note 2: Penalty in the case where the benefit or credit has already been obtained – If plagiarism is proved on a date later than the date of benefit or credit obtained as the case may be, then his/her benefit or credit shall be put in abeyance for a period recommended by IAIP and approved by the Head of the Institution.

Note 3: HEIs shall create a mechanism to ensure that each of the paper publications/thesis/dissertations by the student, faculty, researcher, or staff of the HEI is checked for plagiarism at the time of forwarding/submission.

 

Note 4: If there is any complaint of plagiarism against the Head of an HEI, a suitable action, in line with these regulations, shall be taken by the Controlling Authority of the HEI.

 

Note 5: If there is any complaint of plagiarism against the Head of Department/Authorities at the institutional level, a suitable action, in line with these regulations, shall be recommended by the IAIP and approved by the Competent Authority.

 

Note 6: If there is any complaint of plagiarism against any member of DAIP or IAIP, then such member shall excuse himself /herself from the meeting(s) where his/her case is being discussed/investigated.

 

(The above-stated policies on Academic Integrity and Plagiarism  are excerpts from the UGC regulations on “Promotion of Academic Integrity and Prevention of Plagiarism in Higher Educational Institutions,” New Delhi, July 23, 2018, voted and adopted by the Research Affairs Committee of Spicer Adventist University on January 23, 2019.)

Guidelines and Procedures for Conducting Research Defense

1. Only upon clearance of the research work, in its entirety by the research editor, shall the BoS convene a defense of a student’s research work. The clearance from the editor shall be communicated through a signed approval to the respective BoS.
2. It is highly recommended that there be no more than two defenses conducted in a day by a BoS. This measure is to ensure that that examiners and candidates are given sufficient time and resources. Defense is not simply a formality. It is an examination and should be given the weightage it deserves.
3. A candidate should be allowed to defend her/his work as and when they complete it before the deadline for the final defense announced in the academic calendar. The date shall be fixed no later than a month from the date of the editorial clearance.
4. Defense of students’ research work shall be announced and advertised adequately as posters in SAU bulletin boards on the campus, well in advance to encourage audience attendance to such an academic event. This measure will help cultivate a spirit of research and innovation in the institution.
5. The respective BoS shall be responsible for constituting a five-member Defense Committee that should ideally comprise the following: the supervisor of the student research, member 1, member 2, an internal examiner, and an external examiner.
6. The supervisor and members 1 and 2 are generally full-time faculty members of the division. The internal examiner can be a full-time faculty member of the division or a full-time faculty member of a related discipline from within the institution. The external examiner should be a faculty/expert from another college/university.
7. Copies of the final pre-defense paper, along with a copy of the SAU Research Paper Assessment Rubric, should be submitted to the members of the Defense Committee at least three weeks prior to the actual date of defense.
8. The dean of the BoS shall chair the defense proceedings unless the dean is herself/himself the supervisor of a candidate’s research work. In such a case, it shall be chaired by a full-time faculty member of the division or another related discipline at SAU.
9. The actual defense shall comprise of the following sessions:

An oral presentation of about 25 to 30 mins. by the candidate. It is recommended that candidates employ slide presentations communicating the problem, objective, methodology, highlights of the study, key findings, conclusion, and recommendation.

Discussions and interrogation shall follow the presentation on the research work, beginning with the supervisor for about 30 to 45 mins. It is advisable to limit the interrogations to 2 questions from each member of the defense committee. Although the defense is open to all, questions should be restricted to the expert panel of an examiner appointed for the purpose. Note: It calls for the chair to maintain the decorum of the defense proceedings. Keeping the interactions respectful, professional, and diplomatic is highly recommended.

A close-door meeting of the examiners shall follow the interrogatory phase for about 15 to 20 mins. All the corrections, suggestions, and observations based on the SAU Research Paper Assessment Rubric shall be given in writing to the supervisor, who then shall communicate the same to the candidate.

The meeting of the examiners shall be followed by the declaration of the result of the defense. The result shall be declared by the chairperson of the defense depending on the outcome of the closed-door deliberations. The declaration shall be patterned as follows: On behalf of the defense committee, I regret/ am happy to declare that the theses/project of (Name of the Candidate) has been…

1. accepted
2. accepted with corrections
3. accepted with revisions

 

 

10. The candidate shall be deemed to have passed the research writing course only upon:
    1. duly implementing all the suggestions and corrections given by the examiners
    2. fulfilling all the implementation under the guidance of the supervisor
    3. confirmation and recommendation by the supervisor to the editor
    4. submission of the research work to the editor for final corrections
    5. final submission of two hard copies and a soft copy to the office of the editor.

 

SAU RESEARCH PAPER ASSESSMENT RUBRIC

Criteria	Unsatisfactory			Satisfactory		Good		Excellent		Total
Paper Focus: Purpose/ Position Statement	0-13 points			14-15 points		16-17 points		18-20 points		/20
	Fails to identify a relevant research topic or is not clearly defined and/or the paper lacks focus throughout.			Identifies a research topic but may be too broad in scope, and/or the thesis is somewhat unclear and needs to be developed further. The focal point is not consistently maintained throughout the paper.		Identifies a relevant research topic and a thesis that provides adequate direction for the paper with some degree of interest for the reader. The thesis states the position, premise, or hypothesis and is the paper’s focal point for the most part.		Identify a relevant research topic and a thesis that provides direction for the engaging and thought-provoking paper. The thesis clearly and concisely states the position, premise, or hypothesis and is consistently the focal point throughout the paper.
Analysis	0-22 points			21-23 points		24-26 points		27-30 points		/30
	Demonstrates a lack of understanding and inadequate analysis of the research topic and thesis. The analysis is superficially based on opinions and preferences rather than critical analysis.			Demonstrates general understanding with limited critical analysis of the research topic and thesis (argument). Summarizes perspectives, counterarguments, or opposing positions.		Demonstrates an understanding and some critical analysis of the research topic and thesis (argument). Adequately compares/contrasts perspectives, counterarguments, or opposing positions but broader connections and/or implications are not thoroughly explored.		Demonstrates a sophisticated understanding and careful, critical analysis of the research topic and thesis (argument). Compares/contrasts perspectives, considers counter-arguments or opposing positions, and draws original and thoughtful conclusions with future implications.
Evidence (Sources)	0-22 points			21-23 points		24-26 points		27-30 points		/30
	Lacks sufficient research sources to support the central position and/or, if included, are generally not relevant, accurate, or reliable.  Contains numerous factual mistakes, omissions, or oversimplifications. Sources, if included, are not properly referenced and cited in the paper.			Provides some evidence to support the central position with only a few research sources. Some sources may not be relevant, accurate, reliable, and/or appropriately referenced and cited in the paper.		Provides essential, accurate evidence to support the central position with the required (7) research sources, including 1 source from a periodical database that is most relevant, accurate, and reliable. Sources are referenced and cited appropriately throughout the paper for the most part.		Provides compelling and accurate evidence to support in-depth the central position beyond the required (7) research sources with at least 1 source from a periodical database. Research sources are highly relevant, accurate, and reliable, add to the paper’s strength, and are effectively referenced and cited throughout the paper.
Criteria		Unsatisfactory	Satisfactory		Good		Excellent		Total
Organization		0-6 points	7 points		8 points		9-10 points		/10
		Paper lacks logical organization and impedes readers’ comprehension of ideas. The central position is rarely evident from paragraph to paragraph, and/or the paper is missing multiple required components.	Paper is somewhat organized, although occasionally ideas from paragraph to paragraph may not flow well and/or connect to the central position or be clear as a whole. It may be missing a required component, and/ or components may be less than complete.		The paper is adequately organized. Ideas are arranged reasonably with a progression of thought from paragraph to paragraph connecting to the central position. Includes required components (introduction, body, conclusion, Reference List, etc.) for the most part.		The paper is effectively organized. Ideas are arranged logically, flow smoothly, with a strong progression of thought from paragraph to paragraph connecting to the central position. Includes all required components (introduction, body, conclusion, Reference List, etc.).
Writing Quality & Adherence to Format Guidelines		0-6 points	7 points		8 points		9-10 points		/10
		The paper shows a below-average/ poor writing style lacking in elements of appropriate standard English and following proper APA guidelines. Frequent errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, spelling, usage, and/or formatting.	The paper shows an average and/or casual writing style using standard English and following APA guidelines. Some errors in spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, and/or formatting.		The paper shows above-average writing style and clarity in writing using standard English and following APA guidelines. Minor errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, usage, and/or formatting.		The paper is well written and clears using APA guidelines and standard English characterized by elements of a strong writing style. Basically free from grammar, punctuation, spelling, usage, or formatting errors.
Timeliness* and Length of Paper (* unexcused late)		Deduct 11 points overall, failing	Deduct 6-10 points		Deduct 1-5 points		0 points deducted		/—
		Paper is submitted 2-3 days (49-72 hours) or more after the deadline and/or substantially lacks/exceeds the required length	Paper is submitted 1-2 days (25-48 hours) after the deadline and/or is somewhat lacking (or exceeds) the required length.		Paper is submitted within one day (24 hours) after the deadline and meets the required length (6-8 pages for the body).		Paper is submitted by the deadline and meets the required length (6-8 pages for the body).
					TOTAL POINTS (sum of 6 Criteria)				/100

 

Rubric by Denise Kreiger, Instructional Design and Technology Services, SC&I, Rutgers University, 4/2014.

Instructor Guide and Notes

• Sharing and discussing your Rubric with students is a good idea so that you can all come to a common understanding of what is expected for the assignment and how students’ work will be graded. Students should visibly see a link to the Rubric at the beginning of the assignment in web-enhanced, hybrid, or fully online courses if a course management system is used (e.g., eCollege, Sakai, etc.).
• Rubrics make the process of grading more objective, consistent, and quicker (in the long run).
• The points assigned for each mastery level have been mathematically calculated and proportioned as follows: Excellent = 90-100%; Good = 80-89%; Satisfactory = 70-79%; and Unsatisfactory = 0-69%.
• This Rubric will work with both “percentage-based” grading systems and “points-based” grading systems. For percentage-based grading systems, the overall points must add up to 100 points.
• It is recommended that instructors provide a “model” of an “Exemplary” paper, so students have a frame of reference before undertaking the research work.