For Reviewers
Essay Assessment Rubrics
A structured guide for reviewers assessing submissions to The Nursing Scope. Essays are scored across nine weighted criteria — introduction, organisation, logic and argument, support, quality of writing, citation and reference, quality of presentation, abstract, and conclusion.
A minimum score of 70% is required for a submission to proceed to further editing for publication; submissions scoring below 70% are rejected.
| Criterion | Below Expectation(1–5) | Approaching Expectation(6–10) | Meets Expectation(11–15) | Exceeds Expectation(16–20) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Introduction Weight: 16% | Topic is inappropriate; not relevant to nursing or the health system; issues and facts underlying the topic not well articulated and poorly covered. Purpose/objectives of the essay not clearly stated. Topic does not address contemporary issues. | Topic is partially covered and appropriate to nursing or the health system but does not adequately demonstrate understanding of concepts; issues and facts underlying the topic partially articulated. | Topic is well covered and appropriate to nursing or the health system; issues and facts underlying the topic well articulated; demonstrates strong understanding of key concepts; details are clear, adequate and understandable; topic addresses contemporary issues in nursing and the healthcare system. | In-depth and outstanding coverage of topic; excellent explanation of concepts; mastery of topic; use of clear and focused details; no redundancy in arguments; topic quite relevant to nursing and the healthcare system. |
Organisation Weight: 12% | Organisation is poor, confusing and interferes with the reader's ability to follow ideas. Introduction is weak, distorted, disorganized, misleading and does not provide a background related to the topic. Conclusion is missing, unclear, unrelated to the content, or lacks a summary of the topic. Organisation does not follow journal guidelines. | Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; flow is sometimes crooked and distorted; organisation is somewhat clear; introduction is coherent but does not give a precise, clear background of the topic. Final concluding ideas are available, but the conclusion is not related to the content, or new information not provided in the content is inappropriately introduced. Organisation follows journal guidelines to some extent. | Structured ideas in a coherent, organized manner with good flow and a concise framework; introduction is organized, interesting, and provides a good background to the topic; conclusion is based on the content to a reasonable extent, contains a good summary of the topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. Organisation follows journal guidelines to a reasonable extent. | Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization with smooth flow of ideas; introduction is organized, coherent, captivates the interest of the reader, and provides an excellent background to the topic and its variables; excellent conclusion with succinct and precise concluding ideas that impact readers, based on the content. Organisation follows journal guidelines. |
Logic / Argument Weight: 12% | Demonstrates little logical reasoning for claims and thoughts within the topic; most claims are weak and illogical. | Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the essay content; some claims are weak. | Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the essay content; claims are sound. | Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. |
Support Weight: 10% | Lacks support; uses poor sources for references; citations lack credibility, relevance or academic quality, or are not current; APA format and style are not followed; scant referencing. | Weak or insufficient support; citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; missing APA elements; in-text citations where necessary but formatted inaccurately and not referenced; moderate referencing, at least a minimum of six. | Sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; meets the minimum of six references; in-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Writing and referencing are reflective of APA style and format. | Very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; meets or exceeds the minimum of six citations; accurate citations and referencing; no APA errors. |
Quality of Writing Weight: 10% | Style of writing is inappropriate or does not address the purpose and the audience. | Style of writing is somewhat appropriate to the given audience or purpose; choice of words is fairly adequate. | The style of writing is appropriate for the given audience and the choice of words is clear, specific and varied. | Style of writing is quite appropriate for the given audience or purpose, showing originality; choice of words is accurate, coherent and logical. |
Citation and Reference Weight: 10% | No scholarly attribution; may be plagiarized. | Scant scholarly attribution; major errors in APA style attribution. | Adequate scholarly attribution; minimal errors in APA style attribution. | Excellent scholarly attribution; no errors in APA style attribution. |
Quality of Presentation Weight: 10% | Inconsistent grammar, spelling, punctuation, and paragraphing; surface errors are pervasive and impede communication; writing is very difficult to understand due to extensive errors. | Repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader; inconsistency in language, sentence structure, or word choice; writing is difficult to understand due to multiple errors in spelling, grammar, and/or composition. | Minimal mechanical or typographical errors are present but not overtly distracting to the reader; correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used; clear writing; good grammar; some passive voice or other composition aspects can be improved but do not distract readers. | Free of mechanical and typographical errors. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used; writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
Abstract Weight: 10% | Not relevant to the topic; aim, background, conclusion and recommendation not clearly stated. | Somewhat relevant to the topic but without a clearly linked background, aim, conclusion and recommendation. | Relevant to the topic with clear background, aim, conclusion and recommendation. | Very relevant to the topic with a very clear background, aim, conclusion and recommendation. |
Conclusion Weight: 10% | Main points of the article poorly summarized. Expressed opinion of the writer about its significance, accuracy and clarity poorly stated. Relevant comments on the implication for further discussion in the field not stated. | Main points of the article fairly summarized. Expressed opinion of the writer about its significance, accuracy and clarity fairly stated. Relevant comments on the implication for further discussion in the field fairly stated. | Main points of the article summarized. Expressed opinion of the writer about its significance, accuracy and clarity stated. Relevant comments on the implication for further discussion in the field stated. | Main points of the article excellently summarized. Expressed opinion of the writer about its significance, accuracy and clarity adequately stated. Relevant comments on the implication for further discussion in the field well discussed. |
A score of 70% and above is accepted for further editing for publication; a score below 70% is rejected.
Download original document