Editing Grading rubrics (section)

==== Peer review 1 (RQ + hypothesis) ====

* Beginning (0 points)
** The RQ is not adequately precise. More work is necessary to sharpen it.
** The link between the hypothesis and the RQ is too fuzzy. More work is necessary.
** The scope of the research is such that there will likely be no meaningful novel contribution to science.
* Emerging (1 point)
** The RQ is relatively precise, though there is room for improvement. Relevance and/or importance are not entirely convincing.
** The link between the hypothesis and the RQ could be made more logical or coherent.
** The scope of the research is such that it is not yet entirely clear if there is a meaningful novel contribution to science, no matter how small (regardless of whether the hypothesis is validated or not).
* Proficient (2 points)
** The RQ is somewhat precise. It is likely answerable and relevant.
** It seems that the hypothesis follows logically from the RQ, (in)validating the hypothesis would answer the RQ - though the link could still be sharpened.
** The scope of the research is such that there may be a meaningful novel contribution to science, no matter how small (regardless of whether the hypothesis is validated or not).
* Experienced (3 points)
** The RQ is very precise and sharp. It is obviously answerable, relevant, and important.
** The clearly hypothesis follows logically from the RQ, (in)validating the hypothesis would directly answer the RQ.
** The scope of the research is such that there is meaningful novel contribution to science, no matter how small (regardless of whether the hypothesis is validated or not).