bachelor thesis peer review

• Utility Menu

GA4 Tracking Code

bok_logo_2-02_-_harvard_left.png

Thesis Statement Peer Review

How do you craft a good thesis statement in this activity, students work together to refine their ideas and put together possible evidence for different topics. the purpose is to teach students how to connect their thesis statement with the rest of their paper, and to revise the two in tandem (start with a draft thesis, bring some evidence together, revise the thesis to better reflect the evidence, revise the evidence to better fit the thesis, etc.).

In Odile Harter’s section, students were required to bring to class a thesis statement printed at the top of a blank piece of paper. The thesis had to be appropriate for the upcoming paper, but the students knew this was just a trial thesis and they were under no obligation to keep it for their paper.

First, the instructor paired the students up, then asked each student to pass their thesis statement outside their pair (i.e. if your partner is to your right pass your thesis to the person to your left). Next, each pair took one of the thesis statements they'd been handed and figured out what kind of evidence would work best to support the thesis as stated.

After the work in pairs, the instructor brought the group back together and asked them to share their experiences with the group. What were the challenges? What part of the thesis statements they'd been given lent themselves really well to supporting evidence? As a class, they generated some features of a strong thesis statement, which the instructor wrote on the board.

The instructor put another sample thesis statement on the board and as a class they brainstormed how one might revise it to make it stronger. She asked each pair to go back to the other thesis statement they'd been handed and to revise it to make it as strong as possible, while at the same time staying as close as possible to the spirit of the original statement. Then, everyone returned thesis statements to their original owners. 

Harter asked students to look at the new evidence or revision suggestions they'd received and to share with the group any particularly helpful changes they thought their classmates made. Did the evidence proposed give them ideas about how to revise the thesis? Peer editing can be stressful, so she made sure to emphasize at the outset how important it was that the students respect the spirit of their classmates' thesis statements. A wonderful idea can turn into a flawed draft, so the job was to get at that wonderful idea and help refine it. Harter had the students look for possibilities even if they were not immediately apparent.

This activity may be useful for any class in which students learn to write interpretive essays. Note that the full activity takes at least 75 minutes. In a standard section time, it is difficult to progress beyond the second round of thesis statement modifications.

More activities like this

• Propositional "Translations" of Poetry
• Paper Structure Exercise
• Literary Strips of Paper
• Peer-to-Peer Outline Feedback
• Should Human Genes Be Patentable?

Further Filter By

Activity type.

• Discussion (102) Apply Discussion filter
• Research (79) Apply Research filter
• Presentation (55) Apply Presentation filter
• Role Play (54) Apply Role Play filter
• Homework (44) Apply Homework filter
• Pair and Share (42) Apply Pair and Share filter
• Case Study (31) Apply Case Study filter
• Do Now (31) Apply Do Now filter
• Lab (30) Apply Lab filter
• Game (29) Apply Game filter
• Debate (24) Apply Debate filter
• Peer Instruction (23) Apply Peer Instruction filter
• Quick Write (23) Apply Quick Write filter
• Field Trip (21) Apply Field Trip filter
• Lecture (20) Apply Lecture filter
• Jigsaw (18) Apply Jigsaw filter
• Concept Map (14) Apply Concept Map filter
• Sequence Reconstruction (8) Apply Sequence Reconstruction filter
• Speed Dating (3) Apply Speed Dating filter
• Statement Correction (1) Apply Statement Correction filter
• General Education (44) Apply General Education filter
• Government (38) Apply Government filter
• Physics (20) Apply Physics filter
• English (13) Apply English filter
• Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (13) Apply Organismic and Evolutionary Biology filter
• Sociology (12) Apply Sociology filter
• Statistics (12) Apply Statistics filter
• Expository Writing (10) Apply Expository Writing filter
• Romance Languages and Literatures (10) Apply Romance Languages and Literatures filter
• Germanic Languages and Literatures (9) Apply Germanic Languages and Literatures filter
• History (9) Apply History filter
• Humanities (9) Apply Humanities filter
• Music (9) Apply Music filter
• Mathematics (8) Apply Mathematics filter
• Molecular and Cellular Biology (8) Apply Molecular and Cellular Biology filter
• Economics (7) Apply Economics filter
• Freshman Seminars (6) Apply Freshman Seminars filter
• Social Studies (6) Apply Social Studies filter
• Astronomy (5) Apply Astronomy filter
• Chemistry and Chemical Biology (5) Apply Chemistry and Chemical Biology filter
• Psychology (5) Apply Psychology filter
• Computer Science (4) Apply Computer Science filter
• East Asian Languages and Civilizations (4) Apply East Asian Languages and Civilizations filter
• History of Science (4) Apply History of Science filter
• Linguistics (4) Apply Linguistics filter
• Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology (4) Apply Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology filter
• Comparative Literature (3) Apply Comparative Literature filter
• History and Literature (3) Apply History and Literature filter
• African and African American Studies (2) Apply African and African American Studies filter
• Classics (2) Apply Classics filter
• Earth and Planetary Science (2) Apply Earth and Planetary Science filter
• Education (2) Apply Education filter
• History of Art and Architecture (2) Apply History of Art and Architecture filter
• Public Health (2) Apply Public Health filter
• Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality (2) Apply Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality filter
• Systems Biology (2) Apply Systems Biology filter
• Anthropology (1) Apply Anthropology filter
• Biomedical Engineering (1) Apply Biomedical Engineering filter
• Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations (1) Apply Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations filter
• Psychiatry (1) Apply Psychiatry filter
• Visual and Environmental Studies (1) Apply Visual and Environmental Studies filter

Learning Objective

• Collaborate (107) Apply Collaborate filter
• Develop Subject Specific Intuitions (101) Apply Develop Subject Specific Intuitions filter
• Make Real World Connections to Course Material (101) Apply Make Real World Connections to Course Material filter
• Interpret Primary Sources to Propose a Model or Argument (95) Apply Interpret Primary Sources to Propose a Model or Argument filter
• Learn Foundational Knowledge (82) Apply Learn Foundational Knowledge filter
• Develop Communication Skills (73) Apply Develop Communication Skills filter
• Defend a Position in a Model or Argument (55) Apply Defend a Position in a Model or Argument filter
• Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument (45) Apply Evaluate and Critique a Model or Argument filter
• Reflect on the Learning Process (Metacognition) (44) Apply Reflect on the Learning Process (Metacognition) filter
• Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Methods (23) Apply Compare the Strengths and Weaknesses of Different Methods filter

Length of Activity

• Full Class (142) Apply Full Class filter
• 10 to 30 minutes (49) Apply 10 to 30 minutes filter
• Multiple Classes (31) Apply Multiple Classes filter
• up to 10 minutes (22) Apply up to 10 minutes filter
• Full Semester (19) Apply Full Semester filter

Thesis and Dissertation Guide

• Starting your Dissertation/Thesis
• Dissertation/Thesis Resources
• Books That May Help
• Literature Reviews
• Annotated Bibliography
• We Don't Have It? / Interlibrary Loan
• Online Learning Study Tips
• Search Strategy
• Advanced Search Techniques
• Kemp Library Video Tutorials
• Find Articles / Journals / Databases
• What are...
• Database Video Tutorials
• Peer Reviewed
• How to confirm and cite peer review
• Primary/Secondary Sources
• Other Types of Sources (i.e. Newspapers)
• Legal Research Resources
• Evidence Based Practice/Appraisal Resources
• Google Scholar
• Website Evaluation
• Internet Searching
• Apps You Didn't Know You Needed
• Who is citing me?
• Questions After Hours
• ESU Thesis Submission
• ESU Dissertation Submission

Everything You Need To Know

• What is Peer Reviewed?
• Characteristics of Peer Review
• Finding Peer Review
• Making sure it's peer reviewed
• What is Popular?
• What are Trade Publications?

Very simply an article is peer reviewed if it has been read and scrutinized by scholars or other researchers in the field prior to publication. Think of it as quality control for research and publication.

The article and the journal where it is published also meet certain research and publishing standards for that particular discipline.

Other terms for  peer reviewed  are  refereed  or  juried .

Official Definitions:

The Oxford English Dictionary (2019) defines peer review as "To subject to, or evaluate by, peer review; to referee (a paper)" and peer reviewed as "That is, or has been, subject to peer review; (of a journal) that incorporates a system of peer review."

Bibliography

"peer review, v."  OED Online , Oxford University Press, September 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/237423. Accessed 29 October 2019.

"peer-reviewed, adj."  OED Online , Oxford University Press, September 2019, www.oed.com/view/Entry/263622. Accessed 29 October 2019.

Here are some general characteristics that usually apply to peer reviewed journals and their articles:

• Introduction & literature review
• Theory or background
• Methods (how I did my research)
• Conclusion and/or discussion
• Tone or language of the article will reflect the subject discipline for which it is written. It assumes some scholarly background on the part of the reader
• Most scholarly articles report on original research or experimentation
• May be accompanied by supporting charts and diagrams, but there may be few pictures
• Journal will have little or no advertisement

Is it peer reviewed? How do you know? We have a few ways to sort your results, or identify if your specific result is peer reviewed .

1. Sort your results: Most of our databases have a feature that allows you to limit or refine your search results to only those that are peer-reviewed. Look for that option on the search screen.  Pro tip: some database providers have a more lenient definition of peer reviewed , if you're not sure check with a librarian or your professor.

2. I'm not sure if this article or journal is peer reviewed :

You can look up the journal by title or ISSN number in Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory. Once you locate the journal, Ulrich's will tell you, by having an image of a referee shirt or not,  if a journal is peer reviewed or not.   Below, you can see that of the six results, the first and fifth result are not peer reviewed and the second, third, fourth, and sixth are peer reviewed.

• If you want to see if a particular journal is peer reviewed, go to  Ulrich's Periodical Directory  (you can get there from the Database A to Z list as well).  
• Do a search by Journal Title (here we used "Journal of Anthropology") to see if a journal is peer reviewed.  There will be an image of a referee jersey next to the title if it is peer reviewed. 
• In the below example, the search for "Journal of Anthropology"  UNLV  is not a peer reviewed journal, but  The Australian Journal of Anthropology  is (both electronic and print).

Popular magazines are those that are published with the general reader in mind. The articles generally assume no prior knowledge on the part of the reader and are written by journalists or editors. The goal may be to inform, entertain or persuade the reader.

Popular Magazines may have lots of pictures and they will have advertisements.

Some examples:

• Consumer Reports
• Mademoiselle
• Runners World
• Sports Illustrated

Trade publications are often written by and for professionals within a field or industry. The publication may cover emerging trends, current news and new products. The articles may be "how to" in nature or give practical advise for practitioners in a field. They are usually not academic in nature and are not peer reviewed . The publication will often contain advertisements and photos.   They can look academic, so be sure to review sources carefully.

What is Peer Review? Visual

The Process of Peer Review

Scholarly (and Peer Reviewed) VS Popular

• << Previous: Database Video Tutorials
• Next: How to confirm and cite peer review >>
• Last Updated: Apr 29, 2024 12:07 PM
• URL: https://esu.libguides.com/thesis

The Plagiarism Checker Online For Your Academic Work

Start Plagiarism Check

Editing & Proofreading for Your Research Paper

Get it proofread now

Online Printing & Binding with Free Express Delivery

Configure binding now

• Academic essay overview
• The writing process
• Structuring academic essays
• Types of academic essays
• Academic writing overview
• Sentence structure
• Academic writing process
• Improving your academic writing
• Titles and headings
• APA style overview
• APA citation & referencing
• APA structure & sections
• Citation & referencing
• Structure and sections
• APA examples overview
• Commonly used citations
• Other examples
• British English vs. American English
• Chicago style overview
• Chicago citation & referencing
• Chicago structure & sections
• Chicago style examples
• Citing sources overview
• Citation format
• Citation examples
• College essay overview
• Application
• How to write a college essay
• Types of college essays
• Commonly confused words
• Definitions
• Dissertation overview
• Dissertation structure & sections
• Dissertation writing process
• Graduate school overview
• Application & admission
• Study abroad
• Master degree
• Harvard referencing overview
• Language rules overview
• Grammatical rules & structures
• Parts of speech
• Punctuation
• Methodology overview
• Analyzing data
• Experiments
• Observations
• Inductive vs. Deductive
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Types of validity
• Types of reliability
• Sampling methods
• Theories & Concepts
• Types of research studies
• Types of variables
• MLA style overview
• MLA examples
• MLA citation & referencing
• MLA structure & sections
• Plagiarism overview
• Plagiarism checker
• Types of plagiarism
• Printing production overview
• Research bias overview
• Types of research bias
• Example sections
• Types of research papers
• Research process overview
• Problem statement
• Research proposal
• Research topic
• Statistics overview
• Levels of measurment
• Frequency distribution
• Measures of central tendency
• Measures of variability
• Hypothesis testing
• Parameters & test statistics
• Types of distributions
• Correlation
• Effect size
• Hypothesis testing assumptions
• Types of ANOVAs
• Types of chi-square
• Statistical data
• Statistical models
• Spelling mistakes
• Tips overview
• Academic writing tips
• Dissertation tips
• Sources tips
• Working with sources overview
• Evaluating sources
• Finding sources
• Including sources
• Types of sources

Your Step to Success

Plagiarism Check within 10min

Printing & Binding with 3D Live Preview

Peer Review – Definition, Types, and Examples

How do you like this article cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Peer review, a critical methodology in academic and scientific research, ensures the credibility and quality of scholarly work by subjecting it to the scrutiny of other experts in the field. This process, involving evaluation and feedback, promotes rigorous standards and maintains the integrity of the knowledge base within the discipline.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

• 1 Peer Review – In a Nutshell
• 2 Definition: Peer Review
• 3 The purpose of peer review
• 4 The five types of peer review
• 5 The four steps of the peer review process
• 6 Providing peer review feedback
• 7 Example of a peer review
• 8 Pros and cons of a peer review

Peer Review – In a Nutshell

• Peer review is a set method that lets experts review and edit submitted work. Academic papers are marked to set criteria by an accredited panel. Peer review guarantees credible sources .
• It uses direct and indirect communication between an author and an anonymous panel to prevent bias. Five degrees of stringency exist.
• Peer review helps improve validity, accuracy, ease of reading, and clarity. ‘Blind’ referees guard authors and journals against nepotism, ‘poaching’, reputational publishing, and favoritism.
• The process isn’t without flaws. Critics highlight easy circumvention, stealth plagiarism, slow turnarounds, and irrelevant or overly harsh feedback as acute issues.

Definition: Peer Review

Peer review works by having professional, topical experts apply relevant marking criteria to submitted papers. After a thorough assessment, the peers will summarize their opinions on overall quality and suitability. An editor will then approve or reject it for publication.

Reviewers will send back their constructive criticism and suggest relevant edits to the author. Reviews are multi-stage – one paper may be rejected, changed, and re-reviewed multiple times before eventual approval.

Peer-approved works are considered credible sources. Credibility means work is considered novel, accurate, and trusted for use in the ‘real world’. You can safely cite approved work as secondary sources in your original essays.

Peer assessment is similar but more subjective, qualitative, and personal. Reviewers will mutually assess written work as an open group, highlight strengths, and suggest potential improvements. Peer assessment can help prepare new students while encouraging critical thinking.

The purpose of peer review

A review allows research groups to create quality sources that move beyond individual observations, speculation, or common knowledge. Research, public, and private institutions often use reviews to pool their existing knowledge, improve proposals, and develop better theories.

The five types of peer review

We divide review methodologies by ‘known’ and ‘blind’ author-peer relationships. Journals will generally pick their best match and stick to it.

Single-blind peer review

A single-blind review is straightforward. A paper is reviewed by anonymous, expert adjudicator(s) who are unknown to the author. The author has no active input or right to reply until they’re finished.

The single-blind process is easy to understand and can happen remotely. Anonymity is meritocratic and helps prevent reviewer bias, favoritism, and nepotism. Author exclusion also limits undue first-person influence.

However, single-blind has exploitable flaws. Critics argue that limited anonymity permits circumvention, bullying by proxy, unwarranted harshness in remarks, and stealth plagiarism.

Double-blind peer review

Double-blind reviews add extra security. The author and reviewer(s) are now both unknown to each other. Papers pass back and forth through a neutral third party.

Two-way anonymity helps guard against the issues described above. Double-blind reviews can also remove unfair reputational bias – the expectation that a previously excellent author will continue producing quality work.

Nothing is perfect. With double-blind in play, unscrupulous authors can defeat safeguards with intense effort. Silent plagiarism is, again, a significant risk.

Triple-blind peer review

A triple-blind review is the ultimate in anonymity. While tricky to pull off, hiding absolutely all participants effectively prevents circumvention, conflicts of interest, fraud, and bias. However, triple-blind reviews can be costly, time-consuming, and prone to ruinous accidental identity leaks.

Collaborative review

A collaborative review grants the author(s) an active right to respond to criticism from the reviewers as it comes in. Peer collaborations take place via letter exchange, instant messenger, phone, or another anonymized direct communication method.

An instant right to reply turns the review into a discussion forum, in which ideas and concepts are debated and clarified faster. However, reviewers must always ensure their communication link is fast, stable, and reliable.

Open review

Open reviews are the opposite of blind. Everyone knows the identities of everyone. Anyone interested (within reason) may join in reviews.

However, openness may not be realistic or desirable for select papers. Open reviews may also soften justifiably harsh critiques of sub-par work due to public politeness, stopping beneficial changes.

The four steps of the peer review process

There are four simple yet essential steps to every review.

• Submission – The paper is read by an (expert) editor.
• Selection – The editor considers the work. They will either approve publication, reject it entirely, or send the paper for a full review.
• Peer Review.
• Return – The paper is returned to the author with critiques and suggested alterations. The author edits and resubmits.

Providing peer review feedback

If you want to run your own review? You’ll need to know what creates excellent and welcome criticism.

Create a summary

Every good academic has something concrete to argue. Sometimes, an author might try to disguise a weak, inconclusive, or vague argument by obscuring it in clever, well-written prose – sophistry.

Summarizing the argument and evidence presented in bullet points can help you see if the author really has something substantive to say. With decent papers? It’ll highlight the main threads and themes for quick reference.

Distinguish between major and minor issues

It’s crucial to identify and prioritize your suggested fixes. Dividing your criticisms into major and minor helps authors focus and respond efficiently.

Major issues include flaws in the paper’s central argument, prose, or factual accuracy. Minor problems include spelling, punctuation, and mild citation errors. Choose at your discretion.

Put yourself in the author’s shoes

Unnecessarily harsh, personal, irrelevant, or unwarranted criticism hurts! Any justified, constructive criticism you make should always be:

• Actionable (i.e. Is a Fix Possible?)
• Constructive
• Proportionate (To Error)

Avoid personal attacks against the author, wholesale value judgments (e.g. “rubbish”), and relentless negativity. It’s also worth highlighting what was good frequently. Mixed and reasonable appraisals soften the impact.

Example of a peer review

Every review contains components that make up a full analytical critique. Critical comments insert as footnotes, boxes, or indents.

Pros and cons of a peer review

Consider these strengths and weaknesses carefully while considering whether or not to use a review.

What is peer review?

It’s an academic quality control process that forensically assesses work. Undergoing review is essential to publishing your original work in the sciences or humanities.

What does peer review do?

Peer review ensures published research meets safe, verifiable, and reliable standards for use and reference.

Who uses peer review?

Anyone who works in a field collectively studying a specific, abstract subject (e.g. physics, biology, chemistry).

Is peer review perfect?

No. While worthwhile, academic reviews can still be warped and subverted by bias, falsification, human error, and illicit author-to-peer collusion. Reviews may also miss the weaknesses and misconceptions in new and experimental work.

We use cookies on our website. Some of them are essential, while others help us to improve this website and your experience.

• External Media

Individual Privacy Preferences

Cookie Details Privacy Policy Imprint

Here you will find an overview of all cookies used. You can give your consent to whole categories or display further information and select certain cookies.

Accept all Save

Essential cookies enable basic functions and are necessary for the proper function of the website.

Show Cookie Information Hide Cookie Information

Statistics cookies collect information anonymously. This information helps us to understand how our visitors use our website.

Content from video platforms and social media platforms is blocked by default. If External Media cookies are accepted, access to those contents no longer requires manual consent.

Privacy Policy Imprint

Press ESC to close

A Step-by-Step Guide to Conducting a Literature Review for your Bachelor Thesis

• backlinkworks
• Writing Articles & Reviews
• December 30, 2023

writing a literature review for your bachelor thesis can be a daunting task, but IT is an essential component of your research. A well-written literature review provides a solid foundation for your research by identifying gaps in the existing literature and justifying the need for your study. In this article, we will provide a step-by-step guide to help you conduct a literature review for your bachelor thesis.

Step 1: Define Your Research Question

Before you begin your literature review, IT is important to clearly define your research question. Your research question will guide your literature search and help you identify relevant sources. Make sure your research question is specific, focused, and substantive.

Step 2: Conduct a Comprehensive Literature Search

Once you have defined your research question, the next step is to conduct a comprehensive literature search. Start by identifying relevant databases, journals, and other sources of scholarly literature in your field. Use appropriate keywords and search terms to identify relevant articles, books, and other sources.

Step 3: Evaluate and Select Relevant Sources

After conducting a literature search, you will have a large number of potential sources to review. IT is important to evaluate and select only the most relevant sources for your review. Consider the credibility, relevance, and quality of each source before including IT in your literature review.

Step 4: Organize and Synthesize the Literature

Once you have selected your sources, IT is time to organize and synthesize the literature. Identify key themes, trends, and findings in the existing literature and consider how they relate to your research question. Take detailed notes and create an outline to help you organize your review.

Step 5: Write Your Literature Review

Now that you have organized and synthesized the literature, IT is time to write your literature review. Start by introducing the topic and providing some background information. Then, discuss the key themes and findings from the literature and relate them to your research question. Finally, conclude your literature review by highlighting the gaps in the existing literature and justifying the need for your study.

Conducting a literature review for your bachelor thesis is a critical part of the research process. By following the steps outlined in this article, you can conduct a thorough and comprehensive literature review that will provide a solid foundation for your research. Remember to define your research question, conduct a comprehensive literature search, evaluate and select relevant sources, organize and synthesize the literature, and write your literature review. By following these steps, you can ensure that your literature review is well-structured, well-supported, and well-reasoned.

1. What is the purpose of a literature review?

The purpose of a literature review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on a specific topic. IT helps to identify gaps in the literature and justify the need for further research.

2. How do I know if a source is relevant for my literature review?

When evaluating sources for your literature review, consider the credibility, relevance, and quality of each source. Look for sources that are peer-reviewed, current, and directly related to your research question.

3. How long should a literature review be?

The length of a literature review can vary depending on the requirements of your thesis or research project. However, a literature review is typically several pages long and thoroughly covers the existing literature on the topic.

Mastering Backbone.js: Tips and Tricks for Efficient Development

Designing an engaging user experience for wordpress ecommerce sites.

Recent Posts

• Driving Organic Growth: How a Digital SEO Agency Can Drive Traffic to Your Website
• Mastering Local SEO for Web Agencies: Reaching Your Target Market
• The Ultimate Guide to Unlocking Powerful Backlinks for Your Website
• SEO vs. Paid Advertising: Finding the Right Balance for Your Web Marketing Strategy
• Discover the Secret Weapon for Local SEO Success: Local Link Building Services

Popular Posts

Shocking Secret Revealed: How Article PHP ID Can Transform Your Website!

Uncovering the Top Secret Tricks for Mastering SPIP PHP – You Won’t Believe What You’re Missing Out On!

Unlocking the Secrets to Boosting Your Alexa Rank, Google Pagerank, and Domain Age – See How You Can Dominate the Web!

Discover the Shocking Truth About Your Website’s Ranking – You Won’t Believe What This Checker Reveals!

The Ultimate Collection of Free Themes for Google Sites

Explore topics.

• Backlinks (2,425)
• Blog (2,744)
• Computers (5,318)
• Digital Marketing (7,741)
• Internet (6,340)
• Website (4,705)
• Wordpress (4,705)
• Writing Articles & Reviews (4,208)

How do I write a literature review for the bachelor's or master's thesis?

A literature review is an academic research within the framework of a bachelor’s or master’s thesis in which certain information and data from scientific studies are independently collected to answer a specific question.

The studies originate from scientific journals. The main methods include logical reasoning, analogies, comparisons, simulations, critical considerations and other logical operations.

What are the advantages of a literature review?

• Independence from others,
• There are plenty of sources and above all digital sources,
• Clear methodology,
• Relying on available literature is possible,
• Easy to plan,
• You can write faster
• Relatively little effort,
• No waiting periods,
• Fewer risks and fewer surprises,
• Easier to receive a higher mark.

What are the disadvantages of a literature review?

• Hard to find a topic,
• Your English must be pretty good,
• Demanding sources,
• A research question is difficult to formulate,
• Finding your personal contribution is not easy so you really have to think about it,
• Risk of getting lost in literature,
• Danger of plagiarism.

What does a topic for a literature review look like?

Like other types of work. The difference lies in the data sources and methods.

What does an outline in the Literature Review look like? What chapters need to be included?

You can find a detailed outline with page numbers in the Thesis Guide. Register here.

What are the challenges of a literature review and how do I overcome them?

Your personal contribution to a literature review depends on new knowledge gained by evaluating scientific studies. But you can struggle from these difficulties:

1. You have to gain new insight on the basis of a study review

The biggest challenge is your individual contribution. If everything already exists in the studies, how can I possibly add something new? It seems impossible….

Yes, you can. The Thesis Guide takes you by the hand and leads you step-by-step through this process of knowledge using a chocolate topic as an example. You will receive detailed instructions for your own thesis. From the very beginning you can see what exactly YOUR contribution will be based on the starting situation, the main question, the detailed questions and the formulation of the goal. You "only" have to answer the questions...

2. You must use text analysis methods!

You can only use studies. No experts, no people to interview. There’s not much time. Many texts seem like good sources but you always find better ones.

You will find an overview of the methods for the evaluation and analysis of studies in the Thesis Guide. By formulating the key question at the beginning of the paper, you already have the storyline for the evaluation of the studies.

How do I avoid plagiarism in the Literature Review?

The danger of copying and thus the risk of plagiarism is very high for the literature thesis. You have to pay attention to this from the moment you begin writing.

Quite simply, our Thesis Guide offers a free plagiarism analysis at the end of your thesis, using software approved by universities. Once the check is completed, you will receive detailed instructions with examples on how to correct dubious passages. Follow some simple rules that minimize the plagiarism risk.

Our Thesis Guide helps you see the end of the work right at the beginning, using proven patterns and examples for the initial situation, guiding questions, detailed questions and formulation of objectives. This makes YOUR results clear, right from the start. This even makes work fun!

What’s the best place to start my Literature Review?

Start with the research question, topic and the appropriate sources! What answers are you looking for?

Follow the standardized procedure in the Aristolo Thesis Guide and finish in no time!

• Write a proposal (clear guiding question, the supervisor’s expectations and methods etc.)
• Specifically filter books and fill theory chapters,
• Survey the state of research by means of study evaluations and write the chapters,
• Consider and describe analytical methods (research methods),
• Obtain and evaluate information, data and arguments from sources,
• Gain new insight by means of analyses
• Draw conclusions, write the chapter on results and finish it.

How can the Aristolo Thesis Guide help you write a literature review?

The Thesis Guide has detailed descriptions of the contents of all chapters with micro-questions, sample formulations and tools of all kinds plus much more. Check out the Thesis Guide for help with your Literature Review. Good luck writing your text!

Silvio and the Aristolo Team

PS: Check out the Thesis-ABC and the Thesis Guide for writing a bachelor or master thesis in 31 days.

info This is a space for the teal alert bar.

notifications This is a space for the yellow alert bar.

• National University

Ask Us! National University Library

• NCU Office of the Registrar
• NU Library (formerly NCU)
• 2 Academic Success Center
• 44 Business Research
• 1 Database Help
• 39 Database Problems
• 64 Database Questions
• 7 Database Subscriptions
• 5 Dissertation Center Documents
• 67 Dissertation Research
• 13 Ebook Central Questions
• 30 Education Research
• 10 Evaluating Information
• 24 Interlibrary Loan
• 14 Legal Research
• 28 Library Access
• 1 Library Guides
• 2 Library Workshops
• 82 Locate items in the Library
• 43 Locate Items Outside the Library
• 1 Login Help
• 22 Marriage & Family Therapy Research
• 1 Off-Site Access
• 22 OpenAthens
• 16 Organizing Research and Citations
• 1 Psychology and Counseling Research
• 23 Psychology Research
• 1 Publications
• 44 Reference Management
• 33 RefWorks
• 2 Research Consultations
• 126 Research Techniques
• 7 Service Desk
• 3 Technical Assistance
• 19 Technical Issues
• 10 Tests & Measurements
• 10 Textbooks

NU LibChat Widget

Can't find what you need? Submit a ticket through email, and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.

Are dissertations and theses considered scholarly or peer-reviewed resources?

Dissertations and theses may be considered scholarly sources since they are closely supervised by a dissertation committee made up of scholars, are directed at an academic audience, are extensively researched, follow research methodology, and are cited in other scholarly work.

However, dissertations are still considered student work and are  not  peer-reviewed. Always clarify with your instructor or chair as to whether you can include and cite dissertations and theses in your research.

Still need help?

Didn't get the answer you needed? Contact a librarian through email, phone, SMS, or chat for personalized assistance!

© Copyright 2024 National University. All Rights Reserved.

Privacy Policy | Consumer Information

1. Preparing your thesis project

1.1 features and prerequisites .

The bachelor's thesis is a module in the Psychology programme that once completed is rewarded with 15 ECTS, this equals to 420 hours of study (approximately 2.3 months full time work). The bachelor’s thesis builds on the second year research module and is scheduled as part of the third and final year of the bachelor's programme in Psychology, in the second semester. You can also start the bachelor’s thesis at the start of the first semester (e.g. if you have a study delay). In order to start with your bachelor's thesis you need to meet the prerequisites: you have obtained your first and second year ofthe bachelor’s programme. If you do not meet the prerequisites because you failed for example a module component of your first or second year, you can contact your study adviser ([email protected]). The completion of the bachelor’s thesis takes one semester. During this period, you will be working on your bachelor’s thesis for about 2-3 days a week. This way you will still have time for the other module that is planned during the second semester.

Depending on the specialization that you have chosen, you work on the bachelor’s thesis individually or in groups, but each student must write an individual report. There are assignments available for each specialization. Below you can find more information about the procedure of choosing a specialization, selecting an assignment and how you are supervised. 

1.2 Choosing your specialization 

1.2.1 sign up for a specialization.

Well before the start of each semester, the coordinator of the bachelor's thesis, Nienke Peeters ( [email protected] ) will invite you to think about and eventually sign up for the specialization you would like to write your thesis in. You can write your thesis in different fields of Psychology, namely in the specializations/tracks:

• Conflict, Risk and Safety (CRS);
• Health Psychology and Technology (HPT);
• Human Factors and Engineering Psychology (HFE);
• Educational Psychology (EP);
• Positive Clinical Psychology and Technology (PCPT);
• Professional Development at the Workplace (HRD/OWK)*
• Research Methodology, Measurement and Data Analysis (RMMD/OMD).

The specialization you choose in your bachelor’s thesis does not determine the master track you can do after your bachelor’s programme. Therefore, it is possible to choose different specializations in your bachelor’s thesis and master track. * Please note that successful participation in the (minor)module Professional Learning in Organizations is a prerequisite for choosing the bachelor thesis in this specialization/domain.

1.2.2 track coordinators

For every specialization,there is a coordinator, called track coordinator. The track coordinators have the task to coordinate the graduation and education within one specialization/track. If,after reading the information, you have specific questions about graduation within a specialization or thesis assignment you can contact the relevant track coordinator.

1.3 Choosing an assignment

A few weeks before the start of a new bachelor's thesis track, the relevant assignments for each specialization will be made available on the website for those students who intend to participate/signed up for a specialization. There are two options in choosing your bachelor’s thesis assignment. First, you can choose an existing assignment from the website. You will have to select a number of assignments of your interest and subsequently the theme coordinator will allocate you to an assignment. Second, you can write a proposal for your own assignment. In this case, you have to send a brief research proposal (1 A4) to the theme coordinator of the specialization of your interest 2 months prior to the start of the bachelor’s thesis. Make sure that your proposal contains the topic of your choice, the target group, and the method of approaching the target group, a conceptual research question and a short motivation. You can discuss your proposal during a meeting with the track coordinator. If the assignment seems feasible, the theme coordinator will try to find a supervisor who is willing and able to supervise the assignment.

1.4 Supervision

Bachelor's thesis committees consist of two members: a daily supervisor (first supervisor) and a second examiner, both of whom are University of Twente staff members. At least one of the two supervisors must hold a PhD; the other must hold at least a Master’s degree. The first supervisor is primarily responsible (together with you) for the final product and is your main contact person. Your first supervisor provides you with feedback and has meetings with you to guide your progress. They have 16 hours for this complete process. The second examiner has more of a monitoring role; they guide the process from a distance and function as a second reader for the first supervisor. However, the second examiner will be actively involved in the greenlight and final version of your thesis as a second examiner. They have 4 hours for this complete process.  

A third external supervisor may be involved in the Bachelor's thesis committee in an advisory role. If you conduct your research externally, someone may also supervise you from the company or institution at which you are working, in addition to these two supervisors. If you carry out your research on location, it is best for your supervisor to discuss this with the organization where you will be conducting research. The track coordinator will let you know who your supervisor will be. Please contact your first supervisor as soon as possible to arrange an initial meeting.

• NUS Libraries
• Library FAQs

Q. What are peer review articles? What about scholarly, academic journals? How do I find them?

• 6 Acquisitions
• 1 alerts set-up
• 1 Citation Manager
• 13 Copyright
• 13 Document Delivery
• 10 E-Reserves
• 23 E-Resources
• 6 Exam Papers
• 7 Facilities
• 7 Interlibrary Loan
• 7 Library IT Related Issues
• 4 Membership
• 2 Open access
• 5 Research Data Management
• 7 Research Impact
• 12 Resources
• 28 ScholarBank@NUS
• 8 Scholarly Communication
• 3 Scopus ID
• 5 Standards
• 24 Yale-NUS

Answered By: Library IT Service Last Updated: Jan 17, 2023     Views: 1989

Peer-reviewed articles are articles that have been evaluated and critiqued by researchers and experts in the same field before they are accepted for publication.

In the "Books and E-Resources" box, click on View/Filter button. A new window/tab will open and you can select " Peer-Review " filter on the left.

Please note that not all items in peer-reviewed journals are peer reviewed, for example editorials and book reviews are usually not peer-reviewed but most items such as journal articles shown will be.

Related FAQs

Related library guides, browse by popular topics.

• ScholarBank@NUS
• E-Resources
• Document Delivery
• Scholarly Communication
• Library IT Related Issues
• Research Impact
• Interlibrary Loan
• Exam Papers
• Acquisitions
• Research Data Management
• Open access
• Citation Manager
• alerts set-up

For NUS staff and students only. Search our FAQs,  https://libfaq.nus.edu.sg , to find a ready answer to your question before submitting an online form. We will respond to you as soon as possible.

For loans related queries (e.g. renewals, membership, fines), please email Library Loans & Membership   or call 65166949. NUS Staff and students  may email  Technical Services (eResources)  to report e-resource access issues or connection problems. Please include screenshot of error message encountered.

For all other queries, please use the question form on this page, or  please email  [email protected]  

Ensuring bachelor’s thesis assessment quality: a case study at one Dutch research university

Higher Education Evaluation and Development

ISSN : 2514-5789

Article publication date: 30 May 2023

In the Netherlands, thesis assessment quality is a growing concern for the national accreditation organization due to increasing student numbers and supervisor workload. However, the accreditation framework lacks guidance on how to meet quality standards. This study aims to address these issues by sharing our experience, identifying problems and proposing guidelines for quality assurance for a thesis assessment system.

Design/methodology/approach

This study has two parts. The first part is a narrative literature review conducted to derive guidelines for thesis assessment based on observations made at four Dutch universities. The second part is a case study conducted in one bachelor’s psychology-related program, where the assessment practitioners and the vice program director analyzed the assessment documents based on the guidelines developed from the literature review.

The findings of this study include a list of guidelines based on the four standards. The case study results showed that the program meets most of the guidelines, as it has a comprehensive set of thesis learning outcomes, peer coaching for novice supervisors, clear and complete assessment information and procedures for both examiners and students, and a concise assessment form.

Originality/value

This study is original in that it demonstrates how to holistically ensure the quality of thesis assessments by considering the context of the program and paying more attention to validity (e.g. program curriculum and assessment design), transparency (e.g. integrating assessment into the supervision process) and the assessment expertise of teaching staff.

• Quality assurance
• Accreditation
• Thesis assessment

Hsiao, Y.-P.(A). , van de Watering, G. , Heitbrink, M. , Vlas, H. and Chiu, M.-S. (2023), "Ensuring bachelor’s thesis assessment quality: a case study at one Dutch research university", Higher Education Evaluation and Development , Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-08-2022-0033

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Ya-Ping (Amy) Hsiao, Gerard van de Watering, Marthe Heitbrink, Helma Vlas and Mei-Shiu Chiu

Published in Higher Education Evaluation and Development . Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http:// creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode

Introduction

According to data from the universities of the Netherlands, the number of bachelor’s students at Dutch research universities has been steadily increasing from 2015 to 2021 [1] , leading to increased workload for teaching staff due to the need for greater supervision of students [2] . This increased supervision is particularly evident in the supervision of students’ final projects. In the Netherlands, students can begin working on their final projects in the final year of their program’s curriculum once they pass the first-year diploma (the so-called Propaedeutic phase based on a positive binding study advice, BSA), earn a required number of European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) credits and meet other requirements. A bachelor’s degree is awarded when a student has “demonstrated by the results of tests, the final projects, and the performance of graduates in actual practice or in postgraduate programmes” (The Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders [Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie], hereinafter abbreviated as the NVAO, 2018 , p. 34).

The Bachelor’s thesis is the culmination of the Bachelor’s programme. A Bachelor’s thesis is carried out in the form of a research project within a department. It is an opportunity to put the knowledge learned during the programme into practice. The Bachelor’s thesis is used to assess the student’s initiative and their ability to plan, report and present a project. The difficulty level of the thesis is described by the attainment targets of the programme and the modules followed up until that moment. Students work independently on a Bachelor’s thesis or Individual Assignment (IOO) under the guidance of a supervisor.

This definition highlights the pedagogical value of the thesis (i.e. the opportunity to carry out an independent project) and the purpose of thesis assessment (i.e. to determine the extent to which the intended learning outcomes have been achieved). While this definition acknowledges the importance of a bachelor’s thesis, relatively little research has been done on examining the quality of undergraduate thesis assessment ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Shay, 2005 ; Webster et al ., 2000 ; Todd et al ., 2004 ), let alone in the Dutch context where thesis supervisors and examiners of bachelor’s students are experiencing an increasing workload.

In recent years, the Dutch government has placed increasing emphasis on assessment quality in higher education ( Inspectorate of Education [Inspectie van het Onderwijs], 2016 ). The NVAO has established the Assessment Framework for the Higher Education Accreditation System of the Netherlands (hereinafter abbreviated as the Framework, NVAO, 2018 ). The standards for the accreditation of initial and existing study programs emphasize whether a program has established an adequate student assessment system that appropriately assesses the intended learning outcomes ( NVAO, 2018 ). According to the quality standards of the Framework, thesis assessment should be valid, reliable, transparent and independent. Assessment literature in the higher education context has defined these criteria as follows (e.g. Biggs and Tang, 2007 ; Bloxham and Boyd, 2007 ). Validity refers to the extent to which an assessment accurately measures what it is intended to measure. Reliability refers to the consistency of the assessment results, or how well they accurately reflect a student’s actual achievement level. Transparency is the clarity and specificity with which assessment information is communicated to both students and examiners. Independency is a necessary condition for ensuring the validity and reliability of an assessment, as it requires that examiners remain objective in the assessment process.

Despite the inclusion of these standards in the Framework ( NVAO, 2008 ), official guidance on establishing a quality system of assessing graduation projects that test achievement of the exit level of a study program at Dutch research universities is limited. As assessment practitioners (the first four authors of this article), we have found that it is often unclear for a program’s curriculum and/or management team to establish appropriate thesis assessment procedures at the undergraduate level that meet the NVAO’s quality standards. We hope that our experience can provide valuable insights and guidance for programs seeking to ensure quality assurance for thesis assessment.

Aims and research questions

The purpose of this study is to share our experience and the challenges we faced during internal and external quality assurance processes of thesis assessment. Based on these challenges, we conducted a narrative literature review to develop a set of guidelines for ensuring thesis assessment quality that aligns with the four standards outlined in the Framework ( NVAO, 2018 ): (1) intended learning outcomes, (2) teaching and learning environment, (3) assessment and (4) achieved learning outcomes. To illustrate the application of these guidelines, we present a case study of bachelor’s thesis assessment practices at one Dutch research university.

What are the guidelines for ensuring the quality of thesis assessment procedures that meet the standards specified in the Framework?

How can these guidelines be applied to evaluate the quality of thesis assessment in a study program?

It is important to note that this study is limited to the context of four Dutch research universities, where we encountered common issues during internal quality assurance processes of thesis assessment. Our goal is to share our experience and offer insights that could be useful to other institutions seeking to ensure the quality of thesis assessment. We do not intend to assume that these problems are present at all Dutch research universities.

Problems and guidelines in meeting the four standards

According to the didactic principle of constructive alignment ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ), which is commonly used in Dutch higher education, the three education processes, teaching, learning and assessment, should be aligned with the intended learning outcomes. We begin with Standards 1 and 2, which set out the conditions under which thesis assessment takes place, and then we place more emphasis on Standards 3 and 4, which focus on the quality criteria for thesis assessment.

Standard 1: intended learning outcomes

To ensure that a study program meets Standard 1 of the Dutch Qualification Framework ( NLQF, 2008 ), the intended learning outcomes for graduates in specific subject areas and qualifications are typically developed using the Dublin Descriptors ( Bologna Working Group, 2005 ), which provide generic statements of competencies and attributes. However, it is often assumed that a thesis should assess all of these program learning outcomes (PLOs) since it is intended to evaluate the achieved learning outcomes at the exit level. Unfortunately, these PLOs can be global and unclear, which can confuse and hinder students from trying to understand the expectations for thesis assessment. Our observation is that programs often utilize PLOs as thesis learning outcomes (TLOs), although a thesis is not equivalent to the entire program curriculum.

According to Biggs and Tang (2007) , it is important for teachers to first clearly define the learning outcomes before designing instructional activities to guide students toward achieving them. In addition, the outcomes at the program and course levels (i.e. a thesis is also a course) should also be constructively aligned, and the course-level outcomes should be specific to the context of the course. Therefore, to design effective thesis activities (such as supervision) and develop assessment criteria, it would be more pedagogically valuable to formulate thesis-specific learning outcomes and explain how they contribute to the PLOs and Dublin Descriptors, rather than directly using the PLOs for thesis assessment.

In addition, a thesis course often involves most of the teaching staff in the program. Therefore, it is important to establish clear and specific expectations for what students should achieve at the end of a bachelor’s thesis course ( Willison and O'Regan, 2006 ; Todd et al ., 2004 ), such as the scope and type of research (e.g. scaffolded or self-initiated), integrating disciplinary knowledge and research skills from earlier program curriculum, demonstrating critical thinking through well-supported arguments and developing independent learning skills for future work ( Willison and O'Regan, 2006 ).

Standard 2: teaching-learning environment

According to Standard 2 of the Dutch Qualification Framework ( NLQF, 2008 ), the quality of the teaching and learning environment should be designed to help students achieve the intended learning outcomes of the program curriculum. However, our experience has revealed problems in this area. In informal discussions with thesis supervisors, we have found that students often report a lack of preparedness for a bachelor’s thesis, as they have not been adequately taught or practiced certain academic and research skills such as communication, information seeking and methodologies. Conversely, many teachers in the program believe they have covered these skills in their courses. Furthermore, during thesis calibration sessions, we have observed that novice examiners lack expertise due to insufficient experience in research education, a lack of training as thesis examiners, and unclear instructions on thesis assessment procedures.

To meet Standard 2, we recommend the following two guidelines. First, as suggested by research on curriculum alignment ( Wijngaards-de Meij and Merx, 2018 ) and research skills development ( Willison, 2012 ; Reguant et al ., 2018 ), the program-level curriculum design should arrange domain-specific subjects in a logical order and gradually develop students’ research, communication and independent learning skills so that they are well prepared to work on the thesis. At the same time, universities should focus on converting teaching staff’s research experience into research education expertise ( Maxwell and Smyth, 2011 ) for the long term.

Second, the program should ensure the quality of the teaching staff because examiners’ practices are crucial for the quality of thesis assessment ( Golding et al ., 2014 ; Kiley and Mullins, 2004 ; Mullins and Kiley, 2002 ). According to the literature, thesis examiners should receive sufficient instructions and training on how to grade a thesis ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Kiley and Mullins, 2004 ). In addition, the university should provide teaching staff with written instructions to regulate and communicate thesis assessment procedures for supervisors, examiners and students, as well as assessment training on using the assessment forms and holding calibration sessions to achieve consistency in interpreting criteria and grade points. The literature on how supporting teaching staff in assessment practices contributes to consistency is discussed further in the section on Reliability.

Standards 3 and 4: student assessment and achieved learning outcomes

Ensuring validity starts with clearly defining what the assessment is intended to measure. According to the definition of validity and principle of constructive alignment ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ), thesis assessment should be aligned with learning outcomes.

We have identified two problems in this regard. The first problem is the use of a generic assessment form with a set of uniform criteria across different programs within the same department or school. We believe this practice does not follow the principle of constructive alignment ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ). In particular, the same assessment form cannot be used directly for different degrees (i.e. Bachelor, Master and PhD) based on the Dublin Descriptors. It would be difficult for a generic assessment form to assess the different levels of cognitive demand and skills required at each degree level. For example, the concept of “originality” is defined very differently at each degree level and this should be reflected in the assessment criteria.

The second problem is the quality of the assessment form itself. We have observed the following issues: (1) some criteria are not always directly relevant to the TLOs, (2) the assessment form only lists the names of criteria without defining them or providing specific indicators for each criterion, (3) it is unclear whether different criteria are given equal weight and (4) it is unclear how the final grade is determined (e.g. whether each criterion must be “sufficient” or “passing”).

To address these problems, we recommend the following guidelines. The assessment criteria listed in the form should align with the TLOs and should describe the characteristics of student work that provide relevant, representative and important evidence of their attainment of the learning outcomes ( Brookhart, 2013 , 2018 ; Walvoord and Anderson, 2011 ). In addition to aligning the criteria with the outcomes, the quality of the criteria also affects what is actually being assessed. The criteria should avoid vagueness that leads to multiple interpretations of quality indicators ( Biggs and Tang, 2007 ; Bloxham et al ., 2011 ; Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Webster et al ., 2000 ). To ensure that the assessment measures what it is intended to measure, the criteria should meet the following five criteria ( Brookhart, 2013 , 2018 ; Walvoord and Anderson, 2011 ): they should be definable, observable, distinct from one another, complete and able to support descriptions along a continuum of quality.

Another important aspect of validity is the weighting of multiple assessment criteria. The weighting should reflect the relative importance of the criteria based on the disciplinary focus of the study program. For example, the criterion of “method and data analysis” might carry more weight in psychology than it would in philosophy.

Reliability and independency

Reliability is a necessary condition for validity and refers to the consistency of assessment results. Reliability is important because it allows us to confidently interpret and determine students’ true performance on a thesis.

Independency between examiners is necessary to ensure the reliability (or objectivity) of the assessment process, as it helps prevent influence on each other’s judgment. Independent grading is often specified in the Education and Examination Regulations of an institution.

Intra-rater reliability refers to the consistency of a single examiner’s grading process over time. Inconsistencies may occur due to internal influences rather than true differences in student performance. We have observed inconsistencies in completed assessment forms, including discrepancies between comments and scores given by the same examiner across different student theses.

Analytical: Examiners assign a rating to each criterion and then determine a thesis grade based on the grading guidelines.

Analytical and then holistic: Examiners assign a rating to each criterion and then determine a thesis grade based on the grading guidelines. If the thesis grade does not match the holistic judgment, examiners adjust the ratings of the criteria.

Holistic and then analytical: Examiners hold an initial grade (in their mind) based on holistic judgment. Next, examiners assign a rating to each criterion and determine a thesis grade based on the grading guidelines. If the thesis grade is different from the initial grade, examiners adjust the ratings of the criteria to make sure that these two grades are the same.

To ensure intra-rater reliability, it is essential to clearly define each criterion to prevent multiple interpretations by examiners. Additionally, examiners should be provided with bias-reduction training ( Wylie and Szpara, 2004 ) to make them aware of potential biases, such as supervisor bias ( Bettany-Saltikov et al ., 2009 ; McQuade et al ., 2020 ; Nyamapfene, 2012 ), and to take actions to prevent them. During the grading process, examiners should also consistently revisit the established criteria and level descriptors to maintain consistency.

To improve inter-rater reliability, the literature suggests establishing standard assessment procedures and improving examiners’ assessment practices ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Kiley and Mullins, 2004 ; Pathirage et al ., 2007 ). Standard assessment procedures should clearly outline the process for considering the relative importance of multiple criteria and the relative importance of various indicators within a criterion ( Hand and Clewes, 2000 ; Bloxham et al ., 2016a ; Pathirage et al ., 2007 ; Webster et al ., 2000 ). To improve examiners’ assessment practices, common approaches include providing examiners with the following three processes ( Sadler, 2013 ):

Prior to grading, to ensure consistent grading, examiners should have a shared understanding of the expectations for each criterion and score level. This can be achieved through the use of anchor or exemplar theses, which are previously graded theses that illustrate the characteristics of each score level ( Osborn Popp et al ., 2009 ). Examiners can refer to these anchor theses as they grade to ensure that they are accurately distinguishing between the different score levels. It should also be clear to examiners how to complete the grading form and whether they are allowed to discuss with other examiners during the grading process ( Pathirage et al ., 2007 ; Dierick et al ., 2002 ).

During the grading process, moderation refers to the process of two examiners arriving at a collective thesis grade ( Bloxham et al ., 2016b ). It is important to have clear instructions on how to control evaluative judgments and stay within reasonable limits during the moderation process. Examiners should also be informed of score resolution methods in case of large discrepancies between their scores, as averaging the scores may not be sufficient in such cases ( Johnson et al ., 2005 ; Sadler, 2013 ). If a third examiner is involved in the moderation process, it should be clear who is qualified for this task and how their results are used to determine the final thesis grade ( Johnson et al ., 2005 ).

As a “post-judgment” process, calibration is the act of ensuring that examiners grade student work against the agreed quality criteria and “how a particular level of quality should be represented” ( Sadler, 2013 , p. 6). It can be helpful to think of calibration as similar to checking the accuracy of a weighing scale by comparing it to a standard and making adjustments to bring it into alignment. In a similar vein, the thesis assessment form (including criteria and score-level descriptors) and examiners’ assessment practices should be calibrated, particularly when there are significant changes in thesis assessment procedures. As noted by Sadler (2013) , high-quality evaluative judgments also require the development of “calibrated” academics who serve not only as custodians of quality criteria and level standards but also as consultants for novice and short-term examiners. Calibration can be implemented alongside the normal grading period as part of an internal quality assurance system ( Andriessen and Manders, 2013 ; Bergwerff and Klaren, 2016 ).

Transparency

Transparency in assessment has received increasing attention in higher education in recent years ( Bamber, 2015 ; Bell et al ., 2013 ; O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ; Price, 2005 ). It refers to making the perceptions and expectations of assessors, including requirements, standards and assessment criteria, known and understood by all participants, particularly students ( O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ).

To ensure transparency in thesis assessment, it’s not enough to only provide students with assessment forms and instructions on assessment procedures. Our observations indicate that without discussing the deeper meaning of criteria and standards, there is a risk of different interpretations by examiners and students.

To address this issue, it is important to foster shared understanding and promote assessment for learning and feedback on progress. This can be achieved by helping students develop their understanding of the quality criteria and standards through observation, discussion and imitation of good-quality theses ( Malcolm, 2020 ). Using anchor theses ( Orsmond et al ., 2002 ; Sadler, 1987 ) and involving students in peer review and grading of each other’s theses using the criteria ( O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ; Rust et al ., 2003 ) can be effective ways to do this.

To ensure transparency, supervisors should use the assessment form not only for thesis examination but also during supervising activities, and should clearly explain the criteria and score levels to their students using anchor theses for illustration ( O'Donovan et al ., 2004 ; Rust et al ., 2003 ).

Overview of guidelines

Formulate program-specific TLOs.

Thesis assessment should be appropriate for the program curriculum and assessment plan.

The program should ensure examiners’ assessment expertise by providing training or instructions.

Standards 3 and 4 – student assessment and achieved learning outcomes

TLOs, thesis supervision and thesis assessment should be constructively aligned.

The assessment criteria should be clearly defined and meet quality requirements. The weighting of multiple criteria should reflect the relative importance of TLOs.

Intra-rater reliability: Examiners should revisit the established criteria to ensure consistency and strive to prevent any possible assessor bias.

○ The program should make assessment procedures consistent across examiners.

○ The program should improve examiners’ assessment practices through the use of anchor or exemplary theses, moderation prior to and during assessment practices, and calibration after thesis assessment.

The program should inform students of what is expected of them and how their thesis will be assessed.

The program should instruct supervisors to explicitly use the criteria during supervising activities.

To illustrate the application of these guidelines, we present a case study of a psychology-related bachelor’s program at a Dutch research university. We chose to focus on this program because all of the authors have experience in quality assurance at various psychology programs. The documents for this case study were provided by one of the co-authors, who played a significant role in the quality assurance of assessment at the program. These documents include the program’s learning outcomes, a thesis handbook, a thesis assessment form, grading instructions for examiners and a self-assessment report (which includes reflections on the four standards of the Framework and is required to be submitted to the NVAO before a site visit).

Four of the authors and the vice program director (as a self-reflection exercise) examined these documents and answered open-ended questions derived from the guidelines in Box 1 . The findings were then structured based on the guidelines in Box 1 .

Motivation for participating in this study

Improving the quality of the assessment criteria to prevent multiple interpretations by examiners.

Clearly defining the roles, tasks and responsibilities of supervisors (as the first examiner) and the second examiner.

The vice program director indicated that the assessment form is still in development and that it is a dynamic improvement process, based on examiners’ accumulated experience and feedback from supervisors, examiners, students and assessment specialists.

Brief course descriptions of the Bachelor’s thesis

In this thesis course, students perform a study that covers the entire empirical research cycle, from developing a specific research question to using theory to answer the question and testing the theory through data collection. They integrate knowledge from various disciplines and practice conducting research on a technology-related problem. Students may collaborate in groups for literature search or data collection, but they must formulate a specific question to be answered in their individually written bachelor’s thesis.

Standard 1 – intended learning outcomes

PLO1 – Competent in scientific disciplines

PLO2 – Competent in doing research

PLO3 – Competent in designing

PLO4 – Use of a scientific approach

PLO5 – Basic intellectual skills

PLO6 – Competent in cooperating and communicating

PLO7 – Take into account the temporal, technological and social context.

TLO1 – formulate a research question fitted to the problem and relevant scholarly literature (PLO1,2)

TLO2 – conduct a literature search (PLO1,2,3,4,6)

TLO3 – apply and modify relevant scientific theory in order to solve a technology-related problem (PLO1,2,4,5,7)

TLO4 – make an adequate research design for empirical research (PLO2,3,4)

TLO5 – apply relevant scientific methods for empirical research (PLO1,2,3,4,5)

TLO6 – relate interpretation of data to theory and to design and/or policy recommendations (PLO1,2,3,4,5,7)

TLO7 – individually write a scientific report (PLO5,6)

TLO8 – reflect and think systematically (PLO5,6,7)

We conclude that TLOs contribute to the development of all seven competences outlined in the PLOs, as well as the five components of the Dublin Descriptors.

Standard 2 – teaching-learning environment

The bachelor’s thesis builds upon the knowledge and skills developed in previous courses. According to the curriculum and program assessment plan, student skills progress from year 1 to 3 and are assessed through various types of assessment, such as presentations, reports and reflective writing. However, there is no specific learning trajectory for academic and research skills available.

To ensure student readiness for working independently on their thesis, students must have passed the propaedeutic phase and obtained a required number of ECTS upon enrolment in the bachelor’s thesis course. They must also have passed the two methods courses.

Written instructions, including a detailed explanation of assessment procedures, criteria and rubrics, are provided in a thesis handbook for supervisors, examiners and students.

The program requires novice examiners to go through an “examiner internship” with senior examiners (mentors). They are guided and monitored by their mentors when assessing graduation theses in their first year of practice. They can directly approach mentors when encountering problems during supervision and assessment.

C1 – Abstract (TLO7,8)

C2 – Introduction/Theory (TLO1,2,3,8)

C3 – Method and results (TLO2,4,5,6)

C4 – Discussion (TLO1,2,3,6,8)

C5 – Writing style (TLO7)

C6 – Process/Work attitude (TLO7,8)

Each criterion on the assessment form includes a short definition and a number of indicators, which are graded using a five-point rating scale (Poor–Insufficient–Sufficient–Good–Very good). It is required that qualitative comments be added to all of the criteria.

It is not clear how each criterion is weighted.

It is not clear how the ratings of multiple indicators and criteria are aggregated to determine the total grade.

Although a rating scale is provided, score-level descriptors are not available. It is not clear whether the indicators describe the “Very good” or “Sufficient” score level.

These issues correspond to areas that the program is currently working to improve, as mentioned at the beginning of this section.

Reliability

New examiners receive a one-day training, in which they practice assessing theses based on the rubric, and discuss their practice results with senior examiners. They also receive guidance on how to use the criteria during the supervision process.

The first and second examiners assess the thesis independently by using the same rubric and register their initial grading results separately to the administration system.

It is obligatory for both examiners to hold a moderation meeting in order to arrive at collective grading results. In this meeting, they go through each criterion and discuss the differences. Then they register the collective results in the administration system, which generates the thesis grade.

When the discrepancies between two examiners cannot be moderated during the meeting, both examiners register these in the administration system. Next, a subcommittee from the Examination Board is informed, which carries out additional grading. The members of the subcommittee are senior examiners who are often mentors assigned to the novice examiners during the examiner internship.

There are no institution-wide guidelines on the moderation and calibration process. These quality assurance processes are organized by study programs. How they are implemented depends on the available resources, assessment expertise and time per study program.

Although no calibration procedure is established, the subcommittee regularly regrades a sample of the borderline theses around the fail/pass grade, the theses with a resit, and theses for which the two examiners differ substantially in their initial grading. In addition, this subcommittee holds a regular plenary meeting to discuss their assessment practices and report their findings regularly to the Examination Board.

After the assessment, both examiners and students are asked to fill out a survey to evaluate the use of rubric and the assessment procedures. The results are used for improving the quality of rubric.

These procedures are in line with most of our guidelines. Still, we suggest that the subcommittee systematically analyses their findings of regrading practices and acts on the improvements in order to complete the quality assurance cycle. In addition, as lessons learned from one university, we highly recommend the Examination Board or the program to carry out a regular review of the completed assessment forms to detect whether there is any assessor bias in order to safeguard intra-rater reliability.

The program has established clear guidelines on how to ensure transparency. At the beginning of the final project, an information session is organized to explain the supervision and assessment procedures and rules to students. It is made clear what the role tasks and responsibilities of supervisor, examiner and student are, in what way the thesis is assessed, and what is assessed (i.e. the criteria in the rubric). The criteria and indicators per criterion are explained in detail in this information session.

The program also makes it clear that the criteria should be used from the beginning and during the supervision activities, as well as in the assessment process. Supervisors are instructed to formulate feedback based on the criteria.

To sum up, this case study shows that their thesis assessment practices apply most of the guidelines suggested in this study.

Conclusion and discussion

This study presents problems encountered from a practitioner’s perspective and derives guidelines from the literature to address these issues. These guidelines cover the entire education process, taking the context of the program into account. They not only explain how to meet the quality criteria of validity, reliability, transparency and independence but also include the conditions that increase the likelihood of meeting these criteria, such as the importance of examiners’ assessment expertise and how the institution should facilitate their development in this area. The case study demonstrates how these guidelines are applied to examine thesis assessment practices at a bachelor’s psychology-related program at a Dutch academic university.

Our experience highlights the importance of applying the didactic principle of constructive alignment at the exit level, as it is not always clear to teaching staff what this means in the context of thesis assessment (despite its widespread use at the course level for instructional design) and how it can be used to ensure the four standards of the Framework. This has led to a focus on reliability, as noted by Webster et al . (2000) , such as revising thesis assessment forms and ensuring consistency among examiners. Our study aims to draw the attention of program teams to validity by considering the program’s curriculum and assessment design and the didactic purpose of using a thesis as a graduation project.

While other studies have focused on specific thesis assessment quality criteria such as reliability (e.g. Pathirage et al ., 2007 ), transparency (e.g. Malcolm, 2020 ) and independence ( Todd et al ., 2004 ; e.g. Nyamapfene, 2012 ), our case study shows how to ensure all of these criteria and carry out a complete quality assurance process. This does not mean that a program needs to address all of them at the same time. Instead, we want to emphasize the importance of research education in a bachelor’s program and recommend that the program align its thesis assessment design with its curriculum design for research education (i.e. as a learning trajectory) and its overall assessment design. Improving thesis assessment alone is not sufficient for students to achieve the intended learning outcomes of the program.

A final, and perhaps the most important, aspect to consider is how to effectively use limited resources to improve teaching staff’s assessment expertise so that they can continuously contribute to the improvement of thesis assessment practices. The guidelines presented in this study can be further developed or adapted as training materials for teaching staff.

Limitations

We would like to acknowledge two limitations of this study. First, unlike more traditional research methods such as surveys and interviews, the problems we reported here were compiled from various sources at four Dutch research universities. Without a more rigorous synthesis of these sources, it is possible that there may be some subjectivity and selection bias present. Second, the guidelines we derived from a narrative review of these problem topics may not include all relevant references.

It is important to note that our use of only one psychology-related bachelor’s program for the case study does not allow us to generalize our findings to all bachelor’s psychology programs at other Dutch academic universities. Rather, our aim is to share our experience and research-informed guidelines, and to examine thesis assessment quality from a practitioner perspective. In line with the goals of Koris and Pello’s (2022) article, our aim is to gradually find solutions that are appropriate for our context through several subsequent iterations in the future.

https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/en_GB/f_c_ingeschreven_studenten.html

https://www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/en_GB/reduce-work-pressure#eerste

Andriessen , D. and Manders , P. ( 2013 ), Beoordelen Is Mensenwerk [Evaluation Is Human Work] , Vereniging Hogescholen , Den Haag .

Bamber , M. ( 2015 ), “ The impact on stakeholder confidence of increased transparency in the examination assessment process ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  40 , pp.  471 - 487 .

Bell , A. , Mladenovic , R. and Price , M. ( 2013 ), “ Students' perceptions of the usefulness of marking guides, grade descriptors and annotated exemplars ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  38 , pp.  769 - 788 .

Bergwerff , M. and Klaren , M. ( 2016 ), Kwaliteitsborging Toetsing: En Handreiking Voor Examencommissies [Quality Assurance of Assessment: A Guide for Examination Boards] , Leiden University , Leiden .

Bettany-Saltikov , J. , Kilinc , S. and Stow , K. ( 2009 ), “ Bones, boys, bombs and booze: an exploratory study of the reliability of marking dissertations across disciplines ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  34 , pp.  621 - 639 .

Biggs , J. and Tang , C. ( 2007 ), Teaching for Quality Learning at University , Open University Press , New York, NY .

Bloxham , S. and Boyd , P. ( 2007 ), Developing Effective Assessment in Higher Education: A Practical Guide , McGraw-Hill Education , New York, NY .

Bloxham , S. , Boyd , P. and Orr , S. ( 2011 ), “ Mark my words: the role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading practices ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol.  36 , pp.  655 - 670 .

Bloxham , S. , den-Outer , B. , Hudson , J. and Price , M. ( 2016a ), “ Let's stop the pretence of consistent marking: exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  41 , pp.  466 - 481 .

Bloxham , S. , Hughes , C. and Adie , L. ( 2016b ), “ What's the point of moderation? A discussion of the purposes achieved through contemporary moderation practices ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  41 , pp.  638 - 653 .

Bologna Working Group ( 2005 ), A Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Bologna Working Group Report on Qualifications Frameworks , Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation , Copenhagen .

Brookhart , S.M. ( 2013 ), How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading , Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) , Alexandria, VA .

Brookhart , S.M. ( 2018 ), “ Appropriate criteria: key to effective rubrics ”, Frontiers in Education , [Online] , Vol.  3 , available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/feduc.2018.00022 ( accessed 10 April 2018 ).

Dierick , S. , van de Watering , G.A. and Muijtjens , A. ( 2002 ), “ De actuele kwaliteit van assessment: ontwikkelingen in de edumetrie ”, in Dochy , F. , Heylen , L. and van de Mosselaer , H. (Eds), Assessment in onderwijs: Nieuwe toetsvormen en examinering in studentgericht onderwijs en competentiegericht onderwijs , Boom Lemma Uitgevers , Amsterdam .

Golding , C. , Sharmini , S. and Lazarovitch , A. ( 2014 ), “ What examiners do: what thesis students should know ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  39 , pp.  563 - 576 .

Hand , L. and Clewes , D. ( 2000 ), “ Marking the difference: an investigation of the criteria used for assessing undergraduate dissertations in a business school ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  25 , pp.  5 - 21 .

Hsiao , Y.P. and Verhagen , M. ( 2018 ), “ Examining the quality and use of the grading form to assess undergraduate theses ”, 9th Biennial Conference of EARLI SIG 1: Assessment and Evaluation , Helsinki, Finland .

Inspectorate of Education [Inspectie van het Onderwijs] ( 2016 ), De kwaliteit van de toetsing in het hoger onderwijs [The assessment quality in higher education] , Ministry of Education, Culture and Science [Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap] , Utrecht .

Johnson , R.L. , Penny , J. , Gordon , B. , Shumate , S.R. and Fisher , S.P. ( 2005 ), “ Resolving score differences in the rating of writing samples: does discussion improve the accuracy of scores? ”, Language Assessment Quarterly , Vol.  2 , pp.  117 - 146 .

Kiley , M. and Mullins , G. ( 2004 ), “ Examining the examiners: how inexperienced examiners approach the assessment of research theses ”, International Journal of Educational Research , Vol.  41 , pp.  121 - 135 .

Koris , R. and Pello , R. ( 2022 ), “ We cannot agree to disagree: ensuring consistency, transparency and fairness across bachelor thesis writing, supervision and evaluation ”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education , pp.  1 - 12 .

Malcolm , M. ( 2020 ), “ The challenge of achieving transparency in undergraduate honours-level dissertation supervision ”, Teaching in Higher Education , Vol.  28 No.  1 , pp. 1 - 17 .

Maxwell , T.W. and Smyth , R. ( 2011 ), “ Higher degree research supervision: from practice toward theory ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol.  30 , pp.  219 - 231 .

McQuade , R. , Kometa , S. , Brown , J. , Bevitt , D. and Hall , J. ( 2020 ), “ Research project assessments and supervisor marking: maintaining academic rigour through robust reconciliation processes ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  45 , pp.  1181 - 1191 .

Mullins , G. and Kiley , M. ( 2002 ), “ 'It's a PhD, not a Nobel Prize': how experienced examiners assess research theses ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol.  27 , pp.  369 - 386 .

NLQF ( 2008 ), The Higher Education Qualifications Framework in the Netherlands, a Presentation for Compatibility with the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area , Dutch Qualifications Framework (NLQF) , ’s-Hertogenbosch, The Netherlands .

NVAO ( 2008 ), The Higher Education Qualifications Framework in the Netherlands: A Presentation for Compatibility with the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area , Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) , Den Haag .

NVAO ( 2018 ), Assessment Framework for the Higher Education Accreditation System of the Netherlands , Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) , Den Haag .

Nyamapfene , A. ( 2012 ), “ Involving supervisors in assessing undergraduate student projects: is double marking robust? ”, Engineering Education , Vol.  7 , pp.  40 - 47 .

O'Donovan , B. , Price , M. and Rust , C. ( 2004 ), “ Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria ”, Teaching in Higher Education , Vol.  9 , pp.  325 - 335 .

Orsmond , P. , Merry , S. and Reiling , K. ( 2002 ), “ The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  27 , pp.  309 - 323 .

Osborn Popp , S.E. , Ryan , J.M. and Thompson , M.S. ( 2009 ), “ The critical role of anchor paper selection in writing assessment ”, Applied Measurement in Education , Vol.  22 , pp.  255 - 271 .

Pathirage , C. , Haigh , R. , Amaratunga , D. and Baldry , D. ( 2007 ), “ Enhancing the quality and consistency of undergraduate dissertation assessment: a case study ”, Quality Assurance in Education , Vol.  15 , pp.  271 - 286 .

Price , M. ( 2005 ), “ Assessment standards: the role of communities of practice and the scholarship of assessment ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  30 , pp.  215 - 230 .

Reguant , M. , Martínez-Olmo , F. and Contreras-Higuera , W. ( 2018 ), “ Supervisors' perceptions of research competencies in the final-year project ”, Educational Research , Vol.  60 , pp.  113 - 129 .

Rust , C. , Price , M. and O'Donovan , B. ( 2003 ), “ Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  28 , pp.  147 - 164 .

Sadler , D.R. ( 1987 ), “ Specifying and promulgating achievement standards ”, Oxford Review of Education , Vol.  13 , pp.  191 - 209 .

Sadler , D.R. ( 2013 ), “ Assuring academic achievement standards: from moderation to calibration ”, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice , Vol.  20 , pp.  5 - 19 .

Shay , S. ( 2005 ), “ The assessment of complex tasks: a double reading ”, Studies in Higher Education , Vol.  30 , pp.  663 - 679 .

Todd , M. , Bannister , P. and Clegg , S. ( 2004 ), “ Independent inquiry and the undergraduate dissertation: perceptions and experiences of final-year social science students ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  29 , pp.  335 - 355 .

University of Twente ( 2019 ), The Bachelor's Thesis [Online] . University of Twente , Enschede, The Netherlands , available at: https://www.utwente.nl/en/bee/programme/thesis/ (accessed 8 September 2019) .

Walvoord , B.E. and Anderson , V.J. ( 2011 ), Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment in College , Jossey-Bass , San Francisco, CA .

Webster , F. , Pepper , D. and Jenkins , A. ( 2000 ), “ Assessing the undergraduate dissertation ”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education , Vol.  25 , pp.  71 - 80 .

Wijngaards-de Meij , L. and Merx , S. ( 2018 ), “ Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning goals by making the curriculum visible ”, International Journal for Academic Development , Vol.  23 , pp.  219 - 231 .

Willison , J.W. ( 2012 ), “ When academics integrate research skill development in the curriculum ”, Higher Education Research and Development , Vol.  31 , pp.  905 - 919 .

Willison , J.W. and O'Regan , K. ( 2006 ), Research Skill Development Framework [Online] , The University of Adelaide , Adelaide , available at: https://www.adelaide.edu.au/rsd/ ( accessed 19th November 2019 ).

Wylie , E.C. and Szpara , M.Y. ( 2004 ), National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Bias-Reduction Training: Impact on Assessors’ Awareness , ETS Research Report Series , Princeton, NJ , Vol.  2004 , p. i - 55 .

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their thorough review and valuable feedback, which allowed the authors to improve the quality of the manuscript. The authors appreciate the time and effort they put into the review process.

Funding: This work was supported by National Chengchi University (DZ15-B4). The funder only provides financial support and does not substantially influence the entire research process, from study design to submission. The authors are fully responsible for the content of the paper.

Corresponding author

About the authors.

Ya-Ping (Amy) Hsiao is an assessment specialist and teacher trainer at Tilburg University. Her current research focuses on the reflection, portfolio and performance assessment of the graduation projects.

Gerard van de Watering is a policy advisor at Eindhoven University of Technology. His research and development interest focus on assessment and evaluation, student-centered learning environments, independent learning and study skills. He is also the founder of a network of assessment specialists in academic higher education in the Netherlands.

Marthe Heitbrink is a testing and assessment coordinator at the Psychology department of the University of Amsterdam.

Helma Vlas is an educational consultant, teacher trainer/assessor and assessment specialist at the University of Twente. She is stationed at the Centre of Expertise in Learning and Teaching. She is coordinator of the Senior Examination Qualification trajectory at the University of Twente.

Mei-Shiu Chiu is a full professor of Education at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. Her research interests focus on interactions between emotion/affect, cognition and culture for diverse knowledge domains (e.g. mathematics, science and energy) in relation to teaching, assessment and large-scale databases.

Related articles

We’re listening — tell us what you think, something didn’t work….

Report bugs here

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Join us on our journey

Platform update page.

Visit emeraldpublishing.com/platformupdate to discover the latest news and updates

Questions & More Information

Answers to the most commonly asked questions here

Reviewer comments: examples for common peer review decisions

Peer-reviewing an academic manuscript is not an easy task. Especially if you are unsure about how to formulate your feedback. Examples of reviewer comment s can help! Here you can find an overview of sample comments and examples for the most common review decisions: ‘minor revisions’, ‘major revisions’, ‘revise and resubmit’ and ‘reject’ decisions.

Examples of ‘minor revisions’ reviewer comments

Examples of ‘major revisions’ reviewer comments, examples of ‘revise and resubmit’ reviewer comments, examples of ‘reject’ reviewer comments.

• “This is a well-written manuscript that only needs to undergo a few minor changes. First, …”
• “The manuscript is based on impressive empirical evidence and makes an original contribution. Only minor revisions are needed before it can be published.”
• “I thoroughly enjoyed reviewing this manuscript and only have some minor requests for revision.”
• “The authors develop a unique theoretical framework, and I believe that they should highlight their originality much more.”
• “The authors conduct very relevant research, but fail to emphasise the relevance in their introduction.”
• “The authors draw on extensive empirical evidence. I believe that they can put forward their arguments much more confidently.”
• “The authors adequately addressed my feedback from the first round of peer review. I only have some minor comments for final improvements.”
• “To improve the readability of the paper, I suggest dividing the analysis into several subsections.”
• “Figure 3 is difficult to read and should be adjusted.”
• “Table 1 and 2 can be combined to create a better overview.”
• “The abstract is too long and should be shortened.”
• “I had difficulties understanding the first paragraph on page 5, and suggest that the authors reformulate and simplify it.”
• “The manuscript contains an elaborate literature review, but definitions of the key concepts are needed in the introduction.”
• “Throughout the manuscript, there are several language mistakes. Therefore, I recommend a professional round of language editing before the paper is published.”
• “The paper should undergo professional language editing before it can be published.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘minor revisions’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘minor revisions’ .

• “The manuscript shows a lot of promise, but some major issues need to be addressed before it can be published.”
• “This manuscript addresses a timely topic and makes a relevant contribution to the field. However, some major revisions are needed before it can be published.”
• “I enjoyed reading this manuscript, and believe that it is very promising. At the same time, I identified several issues that require the authors’ attention.”
• “The manuscript sheds light on an interesting phenomenon. However, it also has several shortcomings. I strongly encourage the authors to address the following points.”
• “The authors of this manuscript have an ambitious objective and draw on an interesting dataset. However, their main argument is unclear.”
• “The key argument needs to be worked out and formulated much more clearly.”
• “The theoretical framework is promising but incomplete. In my opinion, the authors cannot make their current claims without considering writings on… “
• “The literature review is promising, but disregards recent publications in the field of…”
• “The empirical evidence is at times insufficient to support the authors’ claims. For instance, in section…”
• “I encourage the authors to provide more in-depth evidence. For instance, I would like to see more interview quotes and a more transparent statistical analysis.”
• “The authors work with an interesting dataset. However, I was missing more detailed insights in the actual results. I believe that several additional tables and figures can improve the authors’ argumentation. “
• “I believe that the manuscript addresses a relevant topic and includes a timely discussion. However, I struggled to understand section 3.1.”
• “I think that the manuscript can be improved by removing section 4 and integrating it into section 5.”
• “The discussion and conclusions are difficult to follow and need to be rewritten to highlight the key contributions of this manuscript.”
• “The line of argumentation should be improved by dividing the manuscript into clear sections with subheadings.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘major revisions’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘major revisions’ .

• “I encourage the authors to revise their manuscript and to resubmit it to the journal.”
• “In its current form, this paper cannot be considered for publication. However, I see value in the research approach and encourage the authors to revise and resubmit their manuscript.”
• “ With the right changes, I believe that this manuscript can make a valuable contribution to the field of …”
• “The paper addresses a valuable topic and raises interesting questions. However, the logic of the argument is difficult to follow. “
• “The manuscript tries to achieve too many things at the same time. The authors need to narrow down their research focus.”
• “The authors raise many interesting points, which makes it difficult for the reader to follow their main argument. I recommend that the authors determine what their main argument is, and structure their manuscript accordingly.”
• “The literature review raises interesting theoretical debates. However, in its current form, it does not provide a good framework for the empirical analysis.”
• “A clearer theoretical stance will increase the quality of the paper.”
• “The manuscript draws on impressive data, as described in the methodology. However, the wealth of data does not come across in the analysis. My recommendation is to increase the number of interview quotes, figures and statistics in the empirical analysis.”
• “The authors draw several conclusions which are hard to connect to their empirical findings. “
• The authors are advised to critically reflect on the generalizability of their research findings.”
• “The manuscript needs to better emphasise the research relevance and its practical implications.”
• “It is unclear what the authors consider their main contribution to the academic literature, and what they envisage in terms of recommendations for further research.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘revise and resubmit’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘revise and resubmit’ .

• “I do not believe that this journal is a good fit for this paper.”
• “While the paper addresses an interesting issue, it is not publishable in its current form.”
• “In its current state, I do not recommend accepting this paper.”
• “Unfortunately, the literature review is inadequate. It lacks..”
• “The paper lacks a convincing theoretical framework ,  which is necessary to be considered for publication.”
• “Unfortunately, the empirical data does not meet disciplinary standards.”
• “While I applaud the authors’ efforts, the paper does not provide sufficient empirical evidence.”
• “The empirical material is too underdeveloped to consider this paper for publication.”
• “The paper has too many structural issues, which makes it hard to follow the argument.”
• “There is a strong mismatch between the literature review and the empirical analysis.”
• “The main contribution of this paper is unclear.”
• “It is unclear what the paper contributes to the existing academic literature.”
• “The originality of this paper needs to be worked out before it can be considered for publication.”
• “Unfortunately, the language and sentence structures of this manuscript are at times incomprehensible. The paper needs rewriting and thorough language editing to allow for a proper peer review.”

If you want to learn more about common reasons for a ‘reject’ decision and see examples of how an actual peer review might look like, check out this post on ‘reject’ decisions .

Master Academia

Get new content delivered directly to your inbox.

Subscribe and receive Master Academia's quarterly newsletter.

Minor revisions: Sample peer review comments and examples

5 proven ways to become an academic peer reviewer, related articles.

The different stages in the manuscript publication process

How to write a literature review introduction (+ examples)

How to write effective cover letters for a paper submission

Dealing with failure as a PhD student

• University Home
• Campus Life

Clemson News

Nine outstanding students to be honored at 2024 University spring awards program

Clemson University announced today the 2024 student spring award recipients. Three undergraduate students and six graduate students will receive awards alongside outstanding faculty and staff during a special ceremony at the Clyde V. Madren Center’s Owen Pavilion from 2-4 p.m. on Monday, May 6.

Norris Medal

The Norris Medal has been awarded since 1908 and was established under the terms of the will of the Honorable D.K. Norris, a life trustee at Clemson. The medal is given each year to a graduating student who, on the basis of exceptional scholastic achievement and leadership ability, is judged by the University Scholarships and Awards Committee to be the best all-around student. Recipients of the Norris Medal have their names affixed to a bronze plaque located in Hendrix Student Center.

The 2024 Norris Medal recipient is Helena Harte, political science and history .

Harte, a senior, is a member of the 2020 National Scholars Program cohort and also owns additional honors as a Dixon Global Policy Scholar, Fulbright semifinalist and Schwarzman Scholarship finalist. In 2022, she represented Clemson and the state of South Carolina at the World Affairs Council National Conference in Washington, D.C. Outside of the classroom, Harte has chaired the Honors Student Advisory Board, served as vice president of the Student Alumni Council and been a member of the Clemson University Tour Guide Association.

Algernon Sydney Sullivan Student Award

The Algernon Sydney Sullivan Award is presented to graduating seniors, alumni and community members of selected colleges and universities in the Southern United States for excellence of character and service to humanity. Clemson University is among 70 southern schools to present the award, named in honor of the first president of the New York Southern Society.

The 2024 Algernon Sydney Sullivan Student Award recipients are Christian Blackburn, wildlife and fisheries biology , and Leah Terry, political science .

Blackburn, a senior, is a member of the 2020 National Scholars Program cohort. He has been involved in several different service activities within his academic college during his time at Clemson. He volunteered with Clemson Fire Tigers, a collaboration with the U.S. Forest Service to help prevent wildfires. Blackburn also served as chapter president of Alpha Phi Omega service fraternity and was involved with the CAFLS Student Advisory Board and the Solid Green gameday recycling program.

Terry, a senior, is a Dixon Global Policy Scholar and 2023 initiate of Phi Beta Kappa Honor Society. She has served as a member of the Honors Student Advisory Board and Honors Curriculum Committee. Beyond the classroom, she has been a member of Clemson Undergraduate Student Government (CUSG), serving on Student Senate and with the Campus Advancement Committee and Council on Diversity Affairs. Terry is a member of Kappa Delta sorority and has participated in the Clemson Diplomacy Club, Clemson Dancers and Clemson University Dance Company.

Outstanding Graduate Researcher Award

The Outstanding Graduate Researcher Award is presented annually to two graduate student researchers at Clemson in recognition of their outstanding contributions to research activity, future promise as a research, and/or originality, imagination and significance of research or creative activity.

The 2024 Outstanding Graduate Researcher Award recipients are Ali Shirzadi Babakan, information systems , and Mandeep Tayal, entomology .

Babakan is pursuing a Ph.D. in the Wilbur O. and Ann Powers College of Business and researches the role of information technology in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management domains. His current research looks at the market for and societal impacts of digital platform ecosystems, AI-based forecasting and cyber-physical systems. His research has been published in one book chapter and 11 peer-reviewed journal articles.

Tayal is a Ph.D. candidate and works alongside Elizabeth Cieniewicz in the plant virology lab within the Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences. His multidisciplinary research spans plant pathology and entomology to understand interactions among peach trees, viruses and pollinators. Tayal has six published peer-reviewed articles in prestigious publications as a primary author and four additional articles as a co-author. Tayal served as president of the Plant and Environmental Sciences Graduate Student Association in 2022.

Outstanding Graduate Teaching Assistant Award

The Outstanding Graduate Teaching Assistant Award is presented annually to two graduate teaching assistants in recognition of their outstanding contributions to student learning and development across academic spaces, such as classrooms and laboratories.

The 2024 Outstanding Graduate Teaching Assistant Award recipients are Margaret Ann Bolick, engineering and science education , and Melina Wallace, English .

Bolick is pursuing a Ph.D. in the Department of Engineering and Science Education. Her research focuses on amplifying voices and educational experiences of first-generation and economically marginalized students in both Norway and the United States. She owns a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering and a master’s degree in mathematics education from Boston University.

Wallace is a second-year graduate student pursuing a master’s degree in English. Her thesis focuses on feminist disability rage in popular culture. Wallace enjoys being in the classroom and engaging with students from diverse learning styles and interests.

Frankie O. Felder Graduate Student Award of Excellence

The Frankie O. Felder Graduate Student Award of Excellence is presented to one graduating master’s student or doctoral candidate who exhibits academic excellence and inspires others by demonstrating perseverance through adversity.

The 2024 Frankie O. Felder Graduate Student Award of Excellence recipient is Tomiko Smalls, educational leadership.

Smalls is a Ph.D. candidate and was recently named to the New Professional and Graduate Student Review Board for the Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education. She is a Southern Region Education Board Doctoral Fellow and a Distinguished Ethics Scholar at Clemson. Smalls is a first-generation college student, owns three degrees from Clemson and is a retiree who held a variety of positions in South Carolina public schools.

Graduate Student Award for Mentoring in Creative Inquiry

The Graduate Student Award for Mentoring in Creative Inquiry is presented each spring in recognition of outstanding work with undergraduate students. Nominations come from students who are actively participating in Creative Inquiry project teams.

The 2024 Graduate Student Award for Mentoring in Creative Inquiry recipient is Mya Kelley, special education .

Kelley is a doctoral student who previously worked as a speech-language pathologist in public schools and pediatric rehabilitation settings. She works as a graduate research assistant in the College of Education and provides pre-service teacher instruction for Creative Inquiry’s Mixed-Reality Simulators Project, which offers future special education teachers a virtual classroom experience. Kelley owns a bachelor’s degree from South Carolina State and master’s degree from UNC Greensboro.

Get in touch and we will connect you with the author or another expert.

Or email us at [email protected]