NEUR3003 Marking rubric 2019 Literature Review Task In consultation with their supervisors, students should define a specific area of research on which to base their reading and then prepare a...

NEUR3003 Marking ru
ic 2019
Literature Review Task
In consultation with their supervisors, students should define a specific area of research on which to base their reading and then prepare a 2000-word literature review on this area.

Assessment criteria for Final research essay
eport
Essays will be assessed by supervisors or another suitable academic using the marking sheet below, against Faculty grade descriptors in relation to each of the following aspects.
(1) CLARITY OF PURPOSE: Does review have a central theme or hypothesis and does the title and abstract clearly and accurately summarise that theme? (20%)
(2) INTEGRATION: Does the review intelligently integrate the findings of multiple research papers in a logical sequence so as to develop the central theme or working hypothesis of the review? (20%)
(3) SCIENTIFIC DEPTH: Does the student convincingly explain the nature of the evidence from the individual papers upon which he
his key conclusions are based? (20%)
(4) APPROPRIATE STYLE and QUALITY CONTROL: The essay should follow the style of a review article in a scientific journal, should be type written using formal English. Is the text unambiguous and easy to read? Is it largely free of typographical and spelling e
ors? Is the source of evidence properly cited in the text with the citations all listed at the end in a consistent and appropriate format (20%)
(5) CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE: How well are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented? How convincingly do the conclusions address the issue/hypothesis that was defined by the title and abstract? (20%)

These criteria will be assessed with reference to the grade descriptors:
50-64 PASS: The work addresses the issues posed by the task; the level of consideration is adequate in the context of the aims, objectives and expected outcomes of the unit of study, but lacks a demonstrated depth of understanding, or suggests lack of understanding of some facts.
65-74 CREDIT: The work is clearly presented, thorough and addresses the issues posed by the task at a
level of consideration consistent with the aims, objectives and expected outcomes of the unit of study. The work demonstrates a good grasp of the facts.
75-84 DISTINCTION: The work meets the criteria for a CREDIT, but in addition is well written, and demonstrates understanding of the subject matter as described by the aims, objectives and expected outcomes of the unit of study, at the highest level.
85-100 HIGH DISTINCTION: The work meets the criteria for a DISTINCTION, but in addition demonstrates inquiry into, understanding of and presentation of the subject matter significantly beyond what is expected in the context of the aims, objectives and expected outcomes of the unit of study.

A marking ru
ic for the final report/essay follows
    1
Marking Ru
ic for Literature Review for
Student name:                     Total (/100%):

    
    Exemplary
    
    Very Good
    Good
    Acceptable
    Not acceptable
    
    HD
    
    
    D
    
    C
    
    P
    
    CLARITY OF PURPOSE:
Does review have a central theme or hypothesis and do the title and abstract (1250 character limit) clearly and accurately summarise that theme?
    20
    19
    17

    16

    14

    12
    11
    10
    
    INTEGRATION:
Does the review intelligently integrate the findings of multiple research papers in a logical sequence so as to develop the central theme or working hypothesis of the review?
    20
    19

    17
    16
    14

    12

    11
    10
    
    SCIENTIFIC DEPTH:
Does the student convincingly explain the nature of the evidence from the individual papers upon which he
his key conclusions are based?
    20

    19
    17

    16

    14

    12
    11
    10
    
    APPROPRIATE STYLE and QUALITY CONTROL:
The essay should follow the style of a review article in a scientific journal, should be type written using formal English. Is the text unambiguous and easy to read?
Is it largely free of typographical and spelling e
ors? Is the source of evidence properly cited in the text with the citations all listed at the end using the Harvard Style?
    20
    19

    17

    16
    14
    12

    11

    10
    
    CONCLUSIONS AND SIGNIFICANCE:
How well are the conclusions supported by the evidence presented? How convincingly do the conclusions address the issue/hypothesis that was defined by the title and abstract?
    20

    19
    17
    16

    14

    12
    11
    10
    

Disruption of TDP-43 normal functions is one of the ways in which neurodegeneration is thought to occur in ALS and FTD and there are many primary research articles that provide evidence of this. 
So, the central argument of your review would be is it loss of nuclear TDP-43 or gain of cytoplasmic TDP-43 that is causing disease? And present both sides using primary research articles to provide evidence for each argument.
As discussed at the tutorial last week the body of your review article should include 2-5 subheadings.
Loss of nuclear TDP-43 - what are the normal functions of TDP-43 within the nucleus and how do these become disrupted in ALS/FTD
Cytoplasmic accumulation of TDP-43 - post-translational modifications of TDP-43 e.g. ubiquitination, phosphorylation, fragmentation - how this effects the localisation and accumulation of TDP-43, sequestration of TDP-43 into stress granules and discuss how this may lead to disease by disrupting normal cellular functions.
· Whether tdp-43 mediated neuronal loss is caused by toxic gain of function of cytoplasmic aggregates or by a loss of its normal function in the nucleus
What triggers the cytoplasmic accumulations and nucleus depletion of tdp-43 in patients without pathogenic mutations