Repository Public Research preview
1# Scoring rubric23Seven dimensions, each scored from 1 to 5 against written anchors. Levels 2 and 4 are for4manuscripts that sit between two anchors. A score is a judgment, not a measurement: it is5only as good as the findings it is tied to, so each score comes with a reason that names6them.78## Dimensions and weights910| # | Dimension | Weight | Role that proposes the score |11|---|---|---|---|12| 1 | Contribution | 20 | Editor |13| 2 | Method and identification | 25 | Referee |14| 3 | Evidence and robustness | 20 | Referee |15| 4 | Exposition and structure | 10 | Editor |16| 5 | Exhibits | 10 | Table and figure editor |17| 6 | Integrity of citations and numbers | 10 | Integrity auditor |18| 7 | Replicability | 5 | Replication auditor |1920Total out of 100 = sum over dimensions of weight x (level - 1) / 4.2122## Anchors2324### 1. Contribution2526- **1** The question is already answered in work the paper cites or should cite; nothing new27 is identified.28- **3** A clear increment (new data, setting or method applied to a known question); the29 difference from the closest papers is stated but its importance is not argued.30- **5** The paper changes what a reader in the field believes or can do; the difference from31 the closest work is stated precisely and the claim of novelty is backed by a documented32 comparison.3334### 2. Method and identification3536- **1** The design cannot answer the question asked (the comparison does not isolate what is37 claimed), or key steps are not described.38- **3** The design is appropriate and described; the main assumption is stated, but a39 plausible alternative explanation is not addressed, or inference ignores a feature of the40 data.41- **5** The design is well matched to the question, assumptions are stated and tested where42 testable, threats are named and handled, and inference fits the data structure.4344### 3. Evidence and robustness4546- **1** Main claims are not supported by the exhibits shown, or results contradict the text.47- **3** Main results support the central claim; robustness checks exist but leave out an48 obvious one, magnitudes are not interpreted, or secondary claims lack support.49- **5** Every claim in the abstract and conclusion is carried by an exhibit; checks that50 could have failed are reported, including unfavourable ones; magnitudes are interpreted.5152### 4. Exposition and structure5354- **1** The argument cannot be followed without rereading; sections are missing or55 misplaced; unfinished text remains.56- **3** Readable and complete; some sections do two jobs, the introduction does not state57 the results, or important material sits in the appendix.58- **5** A reader knows the question, the approach and the result after the introduction;59 each section does one job; nothing essential is in the appendix.6061### 5. Exhibits6263- **1** Tables or figures cannot be read alone, lack units or uncertainty, or disagree with64 the text.65- **3** Exhibits are correct and referenced; several lack complete notes, sample sizes or a66 legend, or are more numerous than needed.67- **5** Every exhibit is self-contained (title, units, uncertainty, N, notes), is called out,68 and matches the text number for number.6970### 6. Integrity of citations and numbers7172- **1** Citations do not resolve or do not support what is attributed to them; numbers73 disagree between abstract, text and tables.74- **3** References resolve and are complete; a few numbers or attributions could not be75 matched, with no pattern.76- **5** Every checked citation supports its sentence, every number in the abstract and77 conclusion is found in the results with the same value, and no internal contradiction was78 found.7980### 7. Replicability8182- **1** Data source, sample construction or estimation cannot be reconstructed from the83 paper; no code or data statement.84- **3** Data and method are described well enough to attempt a replication; code or data are85 promised or partly available; versions and seeds are missing.86- **5** Data (or a documented access route), code, environment and seeds are available and87 map to each exhibit; restrictions are explained.8889## Caps9091A total can hide a fatal flaw. Two caps apply after the sum:9293- If **Method and identification** is 1, the total is capped at 40.94- If **Integrity** is 1 (fabricated or unsupported references, numbers that cannot be95 reconciled), the total is capped at 40 and the editor is told separately.9697State when a cap was applied.9899## Reading the total100101The total orders manuscripts roughly; it does not decide. Indicative bands:102103| Total | Usual reading |104|---|---|105| 80 to 100 | Publishable with minor changes |106| 65 to 79 | Sound; a revision addressing specific points should succeed |107| 45 to 64 | Promising but with major issues whose resolution is uncertain |108| below 45 | The main conclusions are not supported as submitted |109110The recommendation follows from the major comments and whether they can be resolved, and111it can depart from the band: say why when it does. Different venues set different bars for112contribution; adjust the reading of dimension 1, not the anchors.113114## Reporting115116```text117Dimension Level Weight Points Reason (findings)1181 Contribution 3 20 10.0 E-01, E-021192 Method and identification 2 25 6.25 R-01 (major), R-041203 Evidence and robustness 3 20 10.0 R-02, R-051214 Exposition and structure 4 10 7.5 E-051225 Exhibits 3 10 5.0 T-02, T-03, A-071236 Integrity 4 10 7.5 I-011247 Replicability 2 5 1.25 P-01, P-02125Total 47.5 no cap applied126```127128For a revision, add a column with the previous level and name the findings that were129resolved. Do not average the scores of several reviewers without reading why they differ:130a large gap on one dimension is itself information for the editor.131132The hygiene score printed by the audit script is unrelated to this rubric. It counts133mechanical defects and must not be reported as a quality score.134