 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Rubric for peer review
Updated January 27, 2009
Download [DOC 109 KB]
Please indicate the quality of the submission and provide comments in each major section.
| Figure characteristics | ||
|---|---|---|
| Quality: Is the figure visually clear? Are any data points, lines, words, and pictures illegible? Are distinctions that are central to the interpretation (such as a difference between lines) clearly made? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It's somewhat unclear. | [ ] It's difficult to read. |
| Content: Does the concept depicted by the figure fit within the discipline of ecology? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] Partially. | [ ] It is more closely related to another discipline. |
| Ecological context | ||
| Title: Is the title accurate? Is it descriptive enough to be helpful when someone searches for resources? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It needs better description or minor corrections. | [ ] It does not reflect the submission. |
| Legend: Does the figure legend provide the information needed to interpret the figure? Are features such as variables and axes clearly labeled on the figure itself or explained in the legend? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It is somewhat unclear or lacks some information. | [ ] It lacks critical information or is very unclear. |
| Ecological description: Is the ecological significance of the figure clearly and accurately explained? Does it include common and scientific names of key species? Does the description provide any key information needed to interpret the photograph? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It needs better description or minor corrections. | [ ] Ecological significance is inaccurate or unclear. Common or scientific names are not included. |
| Accessible language: Are the title and ecological description worded so that a non-specialist who is teaching ecology can understand them? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] There are one or two undefined specialized terms. | [ ] There is significant use of jargon. |
| Core Ecological Concepts: Are the selected ecological concepts appropriate for the resource? Are these the categories where you would expect to find the resource is you were browsing? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] One concept should be changed. | [ ] These categories are not where I would expect to find this resource. |
| Key taxa: Are the common and scientific names of all key taxa included in sufficient detail? Are they accurate, to your knowledge? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] Requires more detail or minor corrections. | [ ] Names are not included, are inaccurate, or are vague. |
| Pedagogical context | ||
| Pedagogical description: (optional) Does the pedagogical description clearly explain how the figure can be used effectively in the classroom? Note: this is optional information. |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] It needs more detail or some edits for clarity. | [ ] Classroom use is inadequately described of very unclear. |
| Audience level: Is the figure appropriate for the intended audience level(s)? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] Somewhat. It would be useful for some students at this level(s). | [ ] It is inappropriate for students at this level(s). |
| Contribution to Ecoed.net catalog | ||
| Uniqueness: How does this figure contribute something new to the current Ecoed.net catalog? Will it fill a gap in the existing resources? |
||
| [ ] Yes. | [ ] There is a similar figure in the catalog; however, this submission would contribute new qualities. | [ ] There is a similar figure in the catalog. This submission does not make a new contribution or is of poorer quality. |