The topic is: Examining Infertility: A review of the common Causes of infertility and exploring Viable treatment options.
5. Abstract word count should be from 250-300 words
6. References
a. 20-25 is a good number of references. At this point 10 is too low for the final paper.
b. Use mostly primary literature.
c. Websites are not appropriate unless they end with (.gov) or (.org). You can use other
websites to help locate peer reviewed primary references.
7. APA format, this to include
a. There should be a title page with a creative title and no author name
b. All references should utilize APA format (APA modification, references do not have to
organized in alphabetical order)
c. References can be older than 20 years (an APA modification)
d. You can use one textbook, the one we use in class (an APA modification)
e. In text, citations should appear in parenthesis (5) or superscript5. (an APA modification)
8. Figures
a. Need at least one figure/table
b. Figures should appear in the results section
c. If you decide to put figures at the end of the paper, add an Appendix section. Also, refer
to the Appendix in the body of the paper or in the legend of the figure.
d. All figures should have a legend.
9. If you decide to include personal experience that is okay, but it should not take up the entire
paper.
I. Title: Examining Infertility: A review of the common causes of infertility and exploring viable
treatment options.
II. Abstract:
a. explaining what infertility is and what is commonly associated with it.
b. Examining the issue of infertility and introducing its prevalence
c. Description of the purpose (preventing infertility) and overview on finding ways to
combat infertility with medical procedures
d. Restating most important conclusions/discussion of the paper
III. Introduction
a. Introducing the issue of infertility and its prevalence
b. Exploring possible causes as well as recent trajectories of infertility
c. Loosely describing potential treatments
d. Restating the purpose of combating infertility
IV. Main Analysis
a. Potential subtopics:
i. structure, function and associated pathways of the reproductive system
ii. causes of infertility: genetic, chemical, physical causes, basic description on their
interactions with reproductive systems
iii. comparing and contrasting healthy vs nonfunctional reproductive systems
iv. treatment options/other options: artificial insemination, adoption etc
v. describing new findings/research
vi. prevention
mainly organized thematically with iv. Organized methodologically
V. Conclusion:
a. A summary of the introduction as well as a deeper analysis of the most effective
treatment options
b. Presentation of relevant data and associated recommendations
c. Revealing the main findings
VI. References
a. List of references in apa format
The former is an outline that I created as a rough draft. You have creative freedom to change this as appropriate, but keep the topic and general structure (abstract, discussion, introduction, references, conclusion etc).
This is a copy of the rubric he title identifies the theme, study, or nature of the work. As the reviewer, you immediately
understood what the paper was about and what the author’s thesis might be. (Scale 1 to 5.)
2. In the abstract, the purpose or objectives of study, hypothesis, and conclusions are well stated
and present. As the reviewer, you immediately understood what the paper was about and what
the author thesis might be. (Scale 1 to 5.)
3. The abstract works in concert with genre conventions (structure, format, style) to summarize
the body and conclusion of the composition well. The abstract was about 250 words and there
were no quotes or citations. (Scale 1 to 5.)
4. The abstract could stand alone away from the whole paper. The abstract lacked ambiguity. As
the reviewer, you could determine immediately what the paper was about, what the major
points were going to be and what the author’s conclusions were. (Scale 1 to 5.)
5. Provide comments for the author concerning the abstract of the paper. What recommendations
for revision of the abstract would you suggest? What did the author do right and what did the
author do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation as to why you scored
the way you did, so say something more than “good job” or “needs work.” Justify your scores
from above. (Free Response – minimum of 20 words. Don’t be stingy.)
6. The introduction flows in predictable and logical sequences, guiding the reader and establishing
direction of the narrative. It is not merely a repetition of the abstract. Instead the author clearly
uses the introduction to prepare the reader for the discussion portion of the paper. (Scale 1 to
5.)
7. The introduction provides sufficient background for the reader, preparing the reader for the
discussion. Background information includes both general knowledge and specific knowledge
about the topic to prepare the reader for the material that is to be presented in the discussion.
The introduction propels the reader forward and neither patronizes nor antagonizes the reader.
(Scale 1 to 5.)
8. In the introduction, the purpose or objectives of study are well stated and present. The
introduction outlines what will be discussed in the discussion and provides the rationale for the
direction of the paper. It does not merely state “the purpose of the paper is…” (Scale 1 to 5.)
9. Provide comments for the author concerning the introduction to the paper. What
recommendations for revision of the introduction would you suggest? What did the author do
right and what did the author do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation
as to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than “good job” or “needs work.”
Justify your scores from above. (Free Response – minimum of 20 words. Don’t be stingy.)
10. The discussion section presents and interprets evidence from sources appropriately. The author
goes beyond mere repetition of the source material but appropriately synthesizes information
to create a narrative. The author appropriately “connects the dots” to create a clear picture of
his/her theme. (Scale 1 to 5.)
11. The discussion anticipates and meets the reader’s needs and expectations with regard to the
support material and elaboration of detail. The composition provides the reader with enough
details so that they do not need to refer back to previous sections nor provide too much detail
to confuse the reader within a forest of text. Explanations are made where needed and details
excluded when unnecessary. (Scale 1 to 5.)
12. The discussion answers the questions outlined in the assignment. (You will have to look up the
assignment question if you wrote on something else). The author’s writing clearly demonstrates
that they understand the subject of their paper and have expanded their understanding of the
subject beyond the general physiology student (e.g. beyond what might be presented in a
textbook.) (Scale 1 to 5.)
13. Provide comments for the author concerning the discussion to the paper. What
recommendations for revision of the discussion would you suggest? What did the author do
right and what did the author do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation
as to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than “good job” or “needs work.”
Justify your scores from above. (Free Response – minimum of 20 words. Don’t be stingy.)
14. The conclusion section appropriately synthesizes or refutes the evidence from the source
material. Conclusions are clearly stated and supported by the evidence presented in the
discussion. The conclusion anticipates and meets the reader’s needs and expectations by tying
all the details together to provide a clear picture of what has been discovered. The conclusion
summarizes the keys points of the discussions (and does not merely repeat them.) Moreover, it
uses those key points to provide a picture of how the subject relates to the broader context of
physiology. (Scale 1 to 5.)
15. The discussion and conclusion sections together exhibit a unified pattern of exposition, analysis,
and/or argument. The conclusions proceed with authority and/or originality from the discussion
and the whole composition succeeds in responding to the questions established by the
assignment. (Scale 1 to 5.)
16. Provide comments for the author concerning the conclusion to the paper. What
recommendations for revision of the conclusion would you suggest? What did the author do
right and what did the author do wrong in your opinion. The author is looking for an explanation
as to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than “good job” or “needs work.”
Justify your scores from above. (Free Response – minimum of 20 words. Don’t be stingy.)
17. The text of the composition goes beyond repetition or summary of sources. The sources are
integrated into the writing to add authority to the writing. Facts were appropriately cited. Direct
quotes and paraphrases were avoided. Statements such as “According to Dr. So and so…” were
not included. (Scale 1 to 5.)
18. The composition uses only appropriate sources. Secondary sources such as review articles are
found primarily in the introduction with the remainder of the source material consisting of
research journal articles. The author did not use inappropriate sources such as Wikipedia, web
sites, popular journals, magazines, or textbooks. The primary resources are relevant because
they were published after 2000. (Scale 1 to 5.)
19. In-text citations and end-of-text references are appropriately cited, using the correct format as
laid out in the instructions. (Yes, you need to go back and look at the instructions.) If the paper
uses MLA style, it is unacceptable. (Scale 1 to 5.)
20. Provide comments for the author concerning the references and citations to the paper. What
recommendations for revision would you suggest? What did the author do right and what did
the author do wrong in your opinion. Be sure you understand what was expected by looking at
the assignment instructions. The author is looking for an explanation as to why you scored the
way you did, so say something more than “good job” or “needs work.” Justify your scores from
above. (Free Response – minimum of 20 words. Don’t be stingy.)
21. The paper conforms to the instructions on formatting, style, structure, and sectioning. The
paper demonstrates that the author read and followed the assignment instructions. (Scale 1 to
5.)
22. Charts, tables, or figures and accompanying referential text provide enough information for the
reader to understand without referring to other parts of the paper. Note that the figure needs
to be cited unless created by the author. As the reviewer, you should expect some type of visual
aid in order for author to achieve maximal points. Choose whether the visual aid was
appropriate. If you feel that the author’s approach was sufficient, mark it as acceptable (or
better.) (Scale 1 to 5.)
23. If figures were used, figure titles and explanatory legend text is included and is meaningful. The
legend text was written by the author (and appropriately cited) and helped to tie the figure to
the paper. If no figures were used and you felt that it was not necessary that the author use
figures, mark this as acceptable (or better.) If the figure legend text was copied directly from it’s
source, it is unacceptable. (Scale 1 to 5.)
24. In general, the voice, tone, and level of formality of the paper are consistent and well-suited to
the audience or purpose. In short, the paper reads like the scientific literature and demonstrates
that the author understood their subject. (Scale 1 to 5.)
25. In general, language usage by the author impressed the reader. Language exhibited clear,
concise polished prose. Sentences were supple, varied, and clear with few noticeable editing
errors. The paper was not flowery nor did it read like an English composition. The paper was
well written and interesting to read. (Scale 1 to 5.)
26. In general, the composition flows in predictable and logical sequences (makes transitions
between most paragraphs and sections). Most paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and
transitions guide reader from thought to thought. The paper was pleasant to read. (Scale 1 to
5.)
27. The composition exhibits unified patterns of exposition, analysis, and/or argument from
beginning to end. The introduction prepares the reader for the discussion, the discussion
presents the evidence, and the conclusions are presented with well-established authority
and/or originality. Moreover, references are appropriate and correctly used. Overall, the paper
succeeds in responding to the assignment task as a well-written, unified composition. (Scale 1 to
5.)
28. Provide comments for the author concerning the general structure of the paper. What
recommendations for revision would you suggest that you have not suggested elsewhere? What
did the author do right and what did the author do wrong, in your opinion. How was the
grammar and writing style? Did the author follow the general instructions for the paper? (Be
sure you understand what was expected by looking at the assignment instructions. ) The author
is looking for an explanation as to why you scored the way you did, so say something more than
“good job” or “needs work.” Justify your scores from above. (Free Response – minimum of 20
words. Don’t be stingy.)
Sum of scales: ___ / 22 = ______ (score)25. In general, language usage by the author impressed the reader. Language exhibited clear,
concise polished prose. Sentences were supple, varied, and clear with few noticeable editing
errors. The paper was not flowery nor did it read like an English composition. The paper was
well written and interesting to read. (Scale 1 to 5.)
26. In general, the composition flows in predictable and logical sequences (makes transitions
between most paragraphs and sections). Most paragraphs begin with a topic sentence and
transitions guide reader from thought to thought. The paper was pleasant to read. (Scale 1 to
5.)
There will be two files attached. The first is an example given to us which is written well and it’s structure and writing should be used as a guide. The second is my own rough draft which is incomplete as you will see. Thank you so much!