I · Research Protocol
Criterion 2 / 20
25%
Up-to-date Theoretical Framework
Fundamentación Teórica Actualizada
We assess the quality, recency, and relevance of academic and scientific sources that support the theoretical foundation of the project.
Scoring Breakdown
5
Excellent
- Uses academic sources from the last 10 years
- Includes peer-reviewed journals, official reports, or recognized databases
- Sources are directly relevant to the topic
- APA or equivalent citation format used consistently
- Demonstrates critical reading — not just quotes
4
Good
- Mostly recent sources (some older)
- Relevant but could include more depth
- Consistent citation format
- Adequate number of references
3
Acceptable
- Some sources dated or non-academic
- Citation format inconsistent
- Basic coverage of the theoretical background
- Missing key foundational works
2
Insufficient
- Mostly outdated sources (over 15 years old)
- Non-academic sources (Wikipedia, blogs)
- Minimal theoretical connection to project
- Incorrect or missing citations
1
Poor
- No references provided
- Random or irrelevant sources
- No theoretical framework at all
- Cannot identify the scientific basis
Common Mistakes
- ✘Using Wikipedia as a primary source
- ✘Citing sources without reading them
- ✘Sources older than 15 years for a rapidly-evolving topic
- ✘Missing DOI or publication details
Evaluator Focus
- Recency of sources
- Academic credibility
- Relevance to topic
- Citation format
How to Get 5 Points
- ✔Are all sources from journals, institutions, or government reports?
- ✔Are they from the last 10 years?
- ✔Is each source cited correctly in APA?
- ✔Do the sources directly support your argument?
Universal Scoring Scale
1
Poor
2
Insufficient
3
Acceptable
4
Good
5
Excellent
←Back to Rubric
Criterion 2 of 20