mini project report format
Post on 29-Oct-2015
65 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
School of Computer Science
Writing mini-project and project reports
MSc in Advanced Computer Science
MSc in Human-Computer Interaction
MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation
MRes in Natural Computation
MSc in Robotics
Contents General formats for mini-project and summer project reports .................................................. 1 Planning in advance ................................................................................................................. 3 Audience .................................................................................................................................... 3 Structuring your report ........................................................................................................... 4 Producing the report ................................................................................................................ 5 Style ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Feedback and comments ......................................................................................................... 6 Avoiding plagiarism ................................................................................................................. 6
Appendices
I The form of the mini-project report
II The form of the MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human-Computer
Interaction and MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation project report
III Guidance Notes on Plagiarism
IV Marking guidelines for mini-projects
V Marking guidelines for projects
1
General formats for mini-project and summer project reports
Depending on your degree programme, you have to complete between one and two mini-
projects (one in semester 1 and one in semester 2), and one main project (during the Summer
term). At the
completion of each of these projects you will have to write a report. The formats for mini-
projects and the main project are different.
Mini-projects
The mini-project report is to be written in the style of a technical report. There is no word or
page limit on the mini-project reports. However, you are expected to be mindful of your
readers and to produce a report that is of an appropriate and reasonable length. Appendix I
gives detailed guidance on the form of the mini-project report.
The mini-project marking guidelines are given in Appendix IV.
The main (Summer) project
The guidance in this handbook on the main Summer project only applies to students on the
following programmes:
MSc in Advanced Computer Science
MSc in Human-Computer Interaction
MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation
There is separate project guidance for students on other Masters programmes.
The Summer project report is to be written in the style of a journal paper. This report will
have a word limit (to be determined). Detailed guidance on the form of the Summer project
report and the project marking guidelines will be provided in Appendices II and V
respectively.
2
3
Writing your first mini-project report can be a daunting prospect. This document gives some
simple ideas to help you produce a good report.
Planning in advance You should start to plan your report from the day you begin your mini-project or a project.
The report is one of the products of your work, in the same way as a computer program is a
product.
You should discuss with your supervisor the way in which your work will be reported. You
can produce an outline plan of your report after your first meeting with your supervisor. This
plan will not be detailed, but you can gradually increase the amount of detail in the plan until
it is a complete basis for writing the report. The process of planning can help you sort out
your ideas, to make woolly ideas firmer and to get things in a good sequence.
One common mistake students make is to believe that a plan cannot be changed or that it is a
sign of weakness to change a plan. A plan is another tool to be used to get work completed to
a satisfactory standard. It needs to be treated with no more respect than any other tool.
At first, the plan for a mini-project report might be a list of chapter headings. Next, one or
more of these can be broken down into sections, then the sections into subsections, and so on
until a whole chapter is ready to be written. You may decide to split a chapter into two or
more chapters or to merge two or more chapters into one. Even more importantly, your plan
can help you see where the strengths and weaknesses of your work lie. This means that you
can use your plan to decide when to strengthen your report by some extra work, or when to
pass on to new work. In a similar way you can develop the main sections, subsections etc. for
the main project report.
A less common mistake that students make is to think that their report has to be written in
order from the first page to the last. It is wise not to start to write until you have some level of
plan for the whole report, but you can write parts as you go along. For instance, when you
have the material for your review of previous work, you can write that chapter. It is quite
usual to write the inner chapters before the last chapter and then to write the introductory
chapter as the last part you complete.
Audience
You should consider for whom you are writing the report. Obviously, you are writing for the
two people who will assess your work as part of your course. Your supervisor should be
knowledgeable in the topic and may even know as much about your topic as you do. The
second reader (Moderator) will know less than you, but will be experienced in reading and
writing technical papers.
Probably the best audience to whom you should address your report is personified by the
second reader: an intelligent and knowledgeable person, but not necessarily knowledgeable in
your precise area. You should be able to make your work comprehensible to just such a
person and, if possible, your fellow students.
4
Structuring your report We know that a report must have a beginning, a middle and an end. The first reaction of most
students is to label the beginning “Introduction” and the end “Conclusions”. The middle may
consist of “Method” and “Results”. In a way, this division is true of many technical reports in
computing, but you need to develop a more sophisticated way of thinking about structure.
Structure is the most important issue in writing your report.
A good structure is one that allows you to fit the important points into your report in a good
sequence and to leave out the unimportant points. You should consider the following:
Introductory material
Introduce your aim or aims (e.g., as given on your mini-project or project declaration)
and your objectives. This gives your motivation for the work you are writing-up.
Include your review of previous work - previous literature and previous software.
This review should not be a list of previous papers with some text written around it,
but an account of previous work written from the viewpoint of your aims and
objectives. So, if your work is about planning in robotics and you have read some
relevant papers about planning freight movement, it would not usually be sensible to
spend too much time discussing the detail of moving freight. Make your review suit
your work.
An essential component of a review is a critical analysis of research relevant to your
work. “Critical” does not mean “negative” or “disparaging” (e.g. about work of the
others). It means unbiased and insightful review of relevant literature to1:
“
1. Determine the research and methods previously conducted in the field.
2. Discover what remains to be learned in the field.
3. Highlight mistakes, difficulties, or ethical issues encountered by others [...].
4. Clearly define parameters for your own scientific study.
”
Any comments that you make – positive or negative – should be justified. Similarly, if
you identify any gaps or open issues, you must comment on their significance to the
field.
The middle
This analysis of previous work should allow you to justify your aims and objectives in
a broader context of the field of research, to state precisely what work you planned to
do and to explain why it was worth doing. You should then say what you did and
present the results. When describing experimental studies you must provide sufficient
detail to enable a reader to reproduce your experiments and your results.
Ending material
The results you have produced may be interesting but even more interesting is your
interpretation of those results. You have to tell your reader what you think is the
interpretation (or meaning) of your results.
1 http://www.csd509j.net/CVHS/science/scientific%20literature%20review.doc
5
You should then evaluate your results to show their significance. The significance of
your work can be judged by looking at how your work adds to the previous work on
the topic. So, you should build on your review and analysis of previous work. Your
review should have identified areas where the previous work had gaps: you should
explain to your reader how your work has filled some of those gaps.
There are two common errors made at this point. First, students assume that their
work must be represented as a complete success. This is not true. It is far more
important to evaluate your work with the same rigour as other people’s work. The
second error is to be unduly negative about your own work. Your work must be
evaluated with no more harshness than other people’s work.
It is usual to have a chapter or section called “Conclusion”. This should bring together
the strands of your work, commenting on what has been discovered and what future
work has been identified, including possible ways of overcoming limitations you have
identified.
It is difficult to set a good level of detail for both the introduction and the conclusion. Some
people feel that it should only be necessary to read the introduction and conclusion of a
technical report to get an understanding of the work. Then it is only necessary to read the
middle chapters should you need to know a lot of detail about the work.
Producing the report Reports must be in a word processed or printed form. There is no requirement to use a
particular word processing or document preparation system. In choosing a system, you should
discuss with your supervisor the suitability of the system you propose to use and the need to
develop skills in using unfamiliar document preparation software. Hand-written reports are
unacceptable.
Style There are a number of recognised manuals of style that guide the author in consistent ways of
writing. Two widely used manuals for writing are:
The Chicago manual of style (15th ed) (University of Chicago Press, 2003);
The Oxford dictionary for writers and editors (2nd rev ed) (Oxford English
Dictionary Department, 2000).
There are a number of citation style manuals, for instance
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed)
(American Psychological Association, 2001);
MLA handbook for writers of research papers (6th ed) (Gibaldi, 2003).
Style manuals are useful in that they allow you to draw on the experience and expertise of the
publishing industry. Citation manuals in particular ensure that you present sufficient
information in a consistent format.
6
Feedback and comments You should always run a spelling checker over your written work and read through it,
checking for typographical errors. It is more difficult for you to see where you may have
expressed an idea poorly: you understand what you mean to say, but your reader is not as
familiar as you with your topic. So, it is a good idea to get someone else to read through your
report.
Your supervisor may be willing to read through some of your report. You should discuss this
issue with your supervisor in advance. You should establish how much he or she will read
and what kinds of comments they are prepared to offer (content; style; typographical errors).
Most supervisors will read some of your report because it is a way in which they can help to
train you in technical writing. It is usually a bad idea for a supervisor to read an entire report
before submission. The reason is obvious. An aim of the course is to make you more
independent and confident in your research work. While studying on the programme, you
should become progressively more confident about producing your own work without the
need for it to be checked by a figure of authority. Hopefully, by the end of the programme
you will be looking to raise general issues of presentation with your supervisor, content in the
feeling that you know how to present and take responsibility for your own work.
You may be able to get a colleague from the programme to read your report in return for you
reading theirs. This has two positive aspects. First, you get your report read by a person who
is likely to be about as knowledgeable as your second reader. They should be able to easily
see where your presentation is obscure. Second, you get the opportunity to see how another
person puts a report together and should be able to learn from the close observation of
another person going through the same process. You should also learn something about ways
of making comments that are simultaneously sympathetic and effective.
Avoiding plagiarism Guidance notes to be found on the following web pages:
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/students/plagiarism.htm
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/courses/projects/2012/guidance.html#SECTION00090
Plagiarism is the use of other people's work so that is appears to be your own. 'Other people'
include other students as well as authors of books, papers, documents or programs on the
internet, etc. Deliberate plagiarism is a very serious offence that is treated in the same way as
cheating in an examination; this could result in expulsion from the University, and as a
minimum it results in disqualification from the project module. The University and the
School are very strict about plagiarism, and you have signed a contract with the University on
that topic.
Be careful to ensure that plagiarism does not occur accidentally. You can quote other people's
work, but you must clearly indicate that this is what you are doing, and include the source.
Direct quotation of narrative material should always be enclosed in quotation marks and the
source of the material referenced either immediately before or immediately after the
quotation. The full description of the source can be given in the References at the end of the
dissertation. (A guide to one style of referencing will be found at
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~pxc/refs/.)
If the material is paraphrased, it should not be enclosed in quotation marks, but the source
should still be stated clearly. Tables, diagrams, etc. copied from elsewhere must also be
7
clearly labelled as such, with reference to the source. You may have used other people's
programs or source code in producing your software. This is perfectly acceptable provided
you make it clear, by acknowledging the source. If you do not, it will be considered
plagiarism.
For more detailed information on plagiarism please see:
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/students/plagiarism.htm.
A copy of this document is enclosed as Appendix III in this guidebook.
Appendix I
The form of the
mini-project reports
Appendix I
The form of the mini-project reports
The report will comprise:
Title page
This should state the following information
• Type of project (e.g. Second semester mini-project)
• Project title
• Author
• Supervisor
• Affiliation (School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham)
• Date
Abstract and keywords
An informative abstract of no more than 250 words. This should state the aim or aims of
the project. Being an informative abstract, it should contain sufficient information about
the outcome and conclusions of the work as to allow the knowledgeable reader to judge
the significance of the work.
There should be up to 10 keywords or key phrases suitable as indexing points in an
information retrieval system.
Contents
The contents page(s) will list the contents of the report, including:
• Abstract
• Contents
• Figures
• Tables
• Chapters (including sections, subsection, etc, where appropriate)
• List of references or bibliography
• Appendices
Figures
A list of figures included in the report (if any). Each figure should be numbered and have
a brief caption.
Tables
A list of tables included in the report (if any). Each table should be numbered and have a
brief caption.
Chapters
Each chapter, section and subsection is to have a number and title. Each chapter starts on
a new page.
Appendix I
List of References or Bibliography
There will be either a list of references or a bibliography. The ordering of entries and the
form of entries must follow some authority. Students may choose to follow well-known
citation standards (e.g. APA manual), the form prescribed by a journal or publishing
house, or some other format.
At the end of the List of References or Bibliography, there must be a statement of the
form of the citation used.
Required appendices
There are some appendices which are required for each mini-project and project.
A Mini-project declaration
A copy of the agreed mini-project declaration form. (This form can be scanned in
using the School Library scanner.)
B Statement of information search strategy
This is a statement of your method of identifying significant literature and related
work (in paper and/or electronic form). This should include, amongst other things:
forms of literature to be retrieved
- significant parameters for the search, e.g.:
- cut-off date
- need for current/recent information
- restrictions as to language
search tools to be used to retrieve information
search statement used in retrieval
There should be a brief evaluation of the search.
Optional appendices
Material that supports the report should be placed here.
Supervisors have differing opinions about the inclusion of program code in reports. A
minority wish to have all programs included in printed form. More commonly any
significant code should be included on a CD attached to the report.
If a significant amount of your work has taken the form of a program, you should
additionally provide instructions on how to run it. You should then include brief details
of what you have made available and where it is located in an appendix.
Appendix I
The University of Birmingham
School of Computer Science
MSc in Advanced Computer Science / MSc in Human-Computer Interaction /
MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation / MRes in Natural Computation / MSc in
Robotics
First semester mini-project
Intelligent optimisation of meta-interpreted parsers
A. Student
Supervisor: P J Hancox
January 2010
Appendix I
Abstract
Unification grammars describe the syntactic structure primarily by their use of feature
structures which allows the linguist to encode many syntactic features in addition to the
syntactic class. Complex labels mean that matching needs to be more than direct equality,
usually unification.
Linguists are able to express several finer distinctions for a word with one syntactic category
by using feature structures. This means that grammars and, in particular, lexicons, are very
much larger and there is much more ambiguity during parsing. Research has focused on ways
of encoding unification grammars so that they more readily lend themselves to practical
implementation in Prolog.
This work focused on two techniques to optimise grammars in a top-down parser. Analysis of
the search tree of the grammar: paths through the search tree were merged or pruned where
determinism could be introduced and cycles in the grammar removed. Classification of
features by the role played in determining the choice of syntactic category: the presence or
absence of some features determines the choice of syntactic category, whereas other features
merely sub-divided a syntactic category. The former class of features was computed during
parsing, while the latter was computed after parsing.
These techniques were compiled into a recursive transition network and tested individually
and in combination against recognised test samples. Results suggest that analysis of the
phrase structure improves speed significantly for all sentences, whereas classification of
features does not add significant improvement, either when used alone or with the analysis of
phrase structure.
Keywords
Natural language processing; unification grammar; Lexical Functional Grammar; parsing,
parsers; recursive transition network; feature structures; syntactic features; constraints;
Prolog.
Appendix I
Contents
Abstract and keywords................................................................................................. ii
Figures.......................................................................................................................... iv
Tables........................................................................................................................... v
1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Page numbering.............................................................................................. 1
1.2 Sections, subsections, subsubsections and so on............................................ 1
1.3 Etc. ...................................................................................................................1
2 Previous work............................................................................................................ 7
5 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 36
References .................................................................................................................. 42
Appendices
A Mini-project declaration
B Statement of information search strategy
Appendix I
Figures
2.1 Re-entrant features in a feature structure ........................................................................ 10
2.2 Equivalent phrase structure tree and dependency tree .................................................... 12
4.1 Instantiation of features by constraint satisfaction .......................................................... 33
Appendix I
Tables
2.1 Interpreters and compiled parsers for unification grammars............................................ 8
4.1 Parsing performance by time and memory usage for test sample 1............................... 34
4.2 Parsing performance by time and memory usage for test sample 2............................... 34
Appendix I
Chapter 1
Introduction
There are many ways of laying out a chapter. The key points are that each chapter should
start on a new page and should have a number and a title.
1.1 Page numbering
Purists like the page number of the first page of a chapter to be at the bottom of the page, in
the centre. On the second and following pages of the chapter, the page number is placed at
the top of the page. On even numbered pages it is on the left-hand side of the page; on odd
numbered pages, it is on the right-hand side of the page.
1.2 Sections, subsections, subsubsections and so on
It is usual to split chapters into sections, subsections, etc, and to number the sections, etc.
Some word processors and document preparation tools do this automatically for you. They
should also automatically create your contents, figures and tables pages. This is a good
feature, because it allows you to change your document without having to manually change
your contents, figures and tables pages.
1.3 Etc.
Appendix I
References
American Psychological Association (2001) Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (5th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gibaldi, J. (2003) MLA handbook for writers of research papers (6th ed). Modern Language
Association of America.
Hirsch, H (2003) Essential Communication Strategies: For Scientists, Engineers and
Technology Professionals. Wiley.
Lamport, L (1994). LaTeX: A Document Preparation System. Addison-Wesley.
Ritter, R (2000) The Oxford dictionary for writers and editors (2nd rev ed). Oxford
University Press.
University of Chicago Press. (1993) The Chicago manual of style (14th ed). Chicago;
London: University of Chicago Press.
The references have been prepared using:
American Psychological Association (1994) Publication manual of the American
Psychological Association (4th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Appendix I
Appendix I
Appendix A
Mini-project declaration
MSc. in Advanced Computer Science
MSc. in Human Computer Interaction
MSc. in Multidisciplinary Optimisation
MRes in Natural Computation
MSc. in Robotics
First semester mini-project
This form is to be used to declare your choice of mini-project in the first semester of the degree
programme. Please complete this form, obtain the signature of your supervisor and post it in the
appropriate assessed work pigeon hole.
Deadline: 16.00 hrs, 20th October 2010
Name: A. Student
Student number: 01214141234
Mini-project title: Intelligent optimisation of meta-interpreted parsers
Mini-project supervisor: P J Hancox
The following questions should be answered in conjunction with a reading of the handbook.
Aim of mini-
project
To investigate ways of compiling unification grammars so that they can be
parsed more quickly and using less memory.
Objectives to be
achieved To investigate methods of merging search trees to reduce non-deterministic choice; To investigate methods of pruning search trees by removing deterministic sequences; To investigate methods of partitioning features into those that influence the choice of syntactic label (eg NP, noun) and those that subdivide a syntactic label (eg noun singular; noun plural). To implement the above in a parser for Lexical Functional Grammar based on recursive transition networks. To test the effect of the methods described above on parse time and memory
usage for test sentences.
Appendix I
Signed (student) A Student
Date: 9th October 2010
Signed (supervisor): Peter Hancox
Date: 10th October 2010
Project
management skills
Briefly explain
how you will
devise a
management plan
to allow your
supervisor to
evaluate your
progress
There is an agreed plan showing the milestones to be reached during the course of the mini-project. Progress will be reviewed in the regular meetings between supervisor and student.
Systematic
literature skills
Briefly explain
how you will find
previous relevant
work
The important categories are (in order): conference papers; technical reports; journal articles and theses. Conference papers, journal articles and some theses will be identified using Engineering Index, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Reports will be retrieved using WWW report repositories. Dissertations Abstracts International and Index to Theses will be used in more theses need to be found. The search will look for items dating from 1993 to the present.
Communication
skills
What
communication
skills will you
practise during
this mini-project?
Written skills will be practised in the writing of the report. Oral skills will be presented in
verbal reports to the supervisor;
20 minute presentation in SEM580;
presentation to the AI seminar group.
Appendix I
Appendix B
Statement of information search strategy
Parameters of your literature search
Forms of literature
The important categories are (in order):
conference papers;
technical reports;
journal articles;
theses.
Books are not likely to be significant, except for basic programming techniques.
Geographical/language coverage
Important work is likely to be from the North America and Western Europe. Preferred
language is English. Papers in French and German could be read. For papers in other
languages, it would be necessary to reply on abstracts in English.
Retrospective coverage and currency
It is probably sufficient to search retrospectively for five years. This is a current research
topic, so it is necessary to use indexing and abstracting services that are very up-to-date: ie
machine-based services, rather than paper indexes.
Appropriate search tools
Engineering Index
To be used to retrieve conference papers, journal articles and some theses. This is strong on
North American and UK publications (ie English), but less strong on Western European. It
has the retrospective coverage and currency required. Abstracts are available for many
publications. It has the retrospective coverage and currency required. Abstracts are available
for publications in the source journals.
Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index.
Primarily for journal articles. These will be used as ordinary keyword-based indexes (as for
Engineering Index) and/or for citation searching, perhaps using an early paper or papers
retrieved from Engineering Index.
Dissertations Abstracts International and Index to Theses
DAI will be used if the retrieval of North American theses from Engineering Index seems
poor. Index to Theses will be used if the retrieval of UK theses from Engineering Index seems
poor.
Appendix I
Search statements
The search statements used will be based on:
pars* AND unification AND grammar*
This may need to be refined in the number of recalled items is too large. Keywords from
items that have been found will be reviewed in order to refine the set of keywords used.
Brief evaluation of the search.
[The following is a fictional evaluation.]
The search in Engineering Index retrieved 12 items judged to be relevant of which:
• 7 conference items
• 4 journal articles
• 1 thesis (North American)
The search in Science and Social Science Citation Indexes retrieved 7 journal articles judged
to be relevant of which:
• 5 were retrieved from Engineering Index
• 2 were not retrieved from Engineering Index
2 older and most relevant conference papers retrieved from Engineering Index were used as
the basis of a citation search in Science and Social Science Citation Indexes. This retrieved a
further 11 journal papers which were judged relevant in whole or in part.
Reports were retrieved using the University of Waikato report repository and index, and by a
search using Google Scholar. 2 reports were retrieved that were not the basis of other forms
of publication.
A search in Index to Theses confirmed that there were no relevant UK theses. It was
concluded that there was no need to search Dissertations Abstracts International for North
American theses.
Appendix II
Appendix II
The form of the
MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human-Computer Interaction and
MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation
main (Summer) project reports
Appendix II
Appendix II
Guidelines for Authors (project students)
This document provides guidance to the author of the paper to be submitted as a part of the
assessed Summer Project work for the MSc in Advanced Computer Science and the MSc in
Natural Computation programmes. The guidance is primarily on the format of the paper. It is
modelled on the “Guidelines for Authors” documents typically provided by scientific journals
and conference organisers. It draws on material from the publisher Elsevier and from the
IEEE. Guidance on the scientific contents of your paper can be obtained from the associated
document “Guidelines for Reviewers” (see “Writing mini-project and project reports”,
Appendix V).
These arrangements have been made to mimic closely the real-life situation, where the
authors submitting papers to a journal or a conference have only these two sets of guidelines
supplied.
The feedback from the” reviewers” (aka markers) will be provided in the form of reviewer
comments, such as would typically be obtained from reviewers of journal and conference
papers.
In the real situation the reviews go to a journal editor or a conference Programme
Committee who then make a decision whether to accept or reject the paper. Instead, you will
get a mark agreed by two markers.
1. Intended readership Since your paper is likely to be read by members of staff and students whose expertise may
be different to your own, it must be accessible to the non-specialist reader as well as the
expert. In particular it should always contain adequate background and tutorial information.
2. Format 2.1 Length
The length of the main body of your paper, excluding title, author information, keywords,
word count, acknowledgements, references, table and figure captions and appendices, should
not exceed 6000 words. 2.2 Fonts and style
Main body: either single or double column, minimum font size 10pt, recommended line
spacing: 1.5; headings: Distinctive headings should be used for each level of the text (i.e.
sections, sub-sections, sub-sub sections); the recommended maximum level is 4 (i.e. sub-sub-
sub sections). 2.3 Page numbering
Consecutively number all the pages with the exception of the title page.
3. Composition The composition of the paper should be as follows: title page, abstract, keywords, main body
of paper, appendices (if any), acknowledgements (if any), references. 3.1 Title page
3.1.1 Paper title
Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems. Avoid
abbreviations and formulae where possible.
Appendix II
3.1.2 Author name and affiliation
Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this
clearly. Present the author’s affiliation addresses below the names. Indicate the
affiliation with a lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author's name and
in front of the appropriate address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation,
including the country name, and the e-mail address of the author.
3.1 3 Word count
Include the word count for the main body of the paper, including any appendices.
3.2 Abstract
A concise and factual abstract is required (maximum length 250 words). The abstract should
state briefly the purpose of the research, the methods used, the principal results and major
conclusions. In general, an abstract is often presented separate from the paper, so it must be
able to stand alone. References should therefore be avoided, but if essential, they must be
cited in full, without reference to the reference list. Non-standard or uncommon abbreviations
should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract
itself. 3.3 Keywords
Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of up to five keywords, avoiding general
and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, 'and', 'of'). Be sparing with
abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. The
Keywords are used for indexing purposes.
3.4 Main body of paper
3.4.1 Subdivision of the paper
Divide your paper into clearly defined and numbered sections. Subsections should be
numbered 1.1 (then 1.1.1, 1.1.2,...), 1.2, etc. (the abstract, the acknowledgements and
the references are not included in section numbering). Use this numbering also for
internal cross-referencing: do not just refer to 'the text.' Any subsection may be given
a brief heading. Each heading should appear on its own separate line.
3.4.2 Abbreviations
Define abbreviations and symbols that are not standard in this field at their first
occurrence in the paper: in the abstract but also in the main text after it. Ensure
consistency of abbreviations throughout the paper.
3.4.3 Nomenclature and units
Follow internationally accepted rules and conventions: use the international system of
units (SI). If other quantities are mentioned, give their equivalent in SI.
3.4.4 Mathematical formulae
Present simple formulae in the line of normal text where possible. In principle,
variables are to be presented in italics. Number consecutively any equations that have
to be displayed separate from the text (if referred to explicitly in the text).
3.4.5 Figures and figure captions
These should be inserted in the paper itself, at the appropriate locations.
3.4.6 Tables and table captions
Number tables consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text. Place
captions to tables below the table body. Avoid vertical rules. Be sparing in the use of
tables and ensure that the data presented in tables do not duplicate results described
elsewhere in the paper.
Appendix II
3.4.7 Footnotes
Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the
paper, using superscript Arabic numbers.
3.5 Appendices
Appendices typically contain material which is not essential for the understanding of the
research, but which could be useful if the reader were to reproduce the described research.
Examples include mathematical proofs, complex derivations of equations, pseudo-code for
complex algorithms, etc. If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A,
B, etc. Formulae and equations in appendices should be given separate numbering: (Eq. A.1),
(Eq. A.2), etc.; in a subsequent appendix, (Eq. B.1) and so forth. 3.6 Acknowledgements
Place acknowledgements in a separate (not numbered) section, and not as a footnote on the
title page. 3.7 References
Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and
vice versa). Any references cited in the abstract must be given in full. Unpublished results
and personal communications should not be in the reference list, but may be mentioned in the
text. Citation of a reference as 'in press' implies that the item has been accepted for
publication.
3.7.1 Citations in the text
Citations may be made directly (or parenthetically). Groups of references should be
listed first alphabetically, then chronologically, for example: “as demonstrated (Allan,
1996a, 1996b, 1999; Allan and Jones, 1995). Kramer et al. (2000) have recently
shown...”
The following conventions should be respected when referring to different types of
authorships: (1) Single author: the author's name (without initials, unless there is
ambiguity) and the year of publication; (2) Two authors: both authors' names and the
year of publication; (3) Three or more authors: first authors' name followed by ‘et al.’
and the year of publication.
3.7 2 Reference list
The list of references should be placed in a separate (not-numbered) section.
References should be arranged first alphabetically and the further sorted
chronologically if necessary. More than one reference from the same author(s) in the
same year must be identified by the letters "a", "b", "c", etc., placed after the year of
publication. Examples are shown below
Reference to a journal publication:
van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., 2000, The art of writing a scientific
paper, Journal of Science Communication 163(1), 51-59.
Reference to a book:
Strunk Jr., W., White, E.B., 1979. The Elements of Style, third ed., Macmillan, New
York.
Appendix II
Reference to a chapter in an edited book:
Mettam, G.R., Adams, L.B., 1999. How to prepare an electronic version of your
paper, in: B.S. Jones, R.Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the Electronic Age, E-
Publishing Inc., New York, pp. 281-304.
Web reference:
As a minimum, the full URL should be given. Any further information, if known
(author names, dates, reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given.
4. Supplementary data You may (but do not have to) include supplementary material in electronic format to support
and enhance your research paper. Examples of supplementary materials include source code,
executable applications, movies, animation sequences, high-resolution images, background
datasets, sound clips, etc. Any supplementary material should be submitted on a clearly
labelled CD. Supply a concise and descriptive caption for each file. In order to ensure that the
material is directly usable, adhere to commonly used data file formats. For any executable
files please provide clear user instructions. The reviewers may (but DO NOT HAVE TO)
inspect the supplementary data, therefore you have to ensure that the paper contains all the
essential information needed to judge your project work.
Appendix III
Guidance Notes on Plagiarism
source: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/studentinfo/plagiarism.htm
1. What is Plagiarism?
The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines plagiarise as:
"take and use another person’s (thoughts, writings, inventions) as one’s own."
A crucial phrase in this definition is "as one’s own." In all learning at University it is
completely acceptable to use another person’s thoughts, writings or inventions to aid our own
learning and understanding. Indeed, this is a primary method of learning. We all read
textbooks, research papers, manuals and many other documents, and make use of the material
contained in them. This is perfectly normal and acceptable.
The use of another person’s work does not constitute plagiarism unless we present that work
as our own. When writing essays, project reports, computer programs, or when giving any
form of presentation, it is important that whenever we include the work of others, it is clearly
acknowledged as such.
2. What is Wrong with Plagiarism?
Plagiarism is a form of cheating. Copying the ideas or writings of others and presenting them
as our own ideas and writings amounts to stealing some of the credit for another person’s
work and dishonestly obtaining credit for ourselves. Any form of cheating is to be
condemned, and plagiarism is no exception. Theft of intellectual work by copying that work
is still theft, and should be treated as such.
In a commercial or business context, the laws of copyright and patent are designed to help
protect companies or individuals from the plagiarism of their work by others for commercial
gain. In an academic context, there are no formal laws beyond those of copyright and patent,
but the academic community works within very strong conventions that regard all forms of
plagiarism as totally unacceptable and strongly to be condemned. Academics who are found
guilty of plagiarism have their reputations and careers damaged or destroyed.
In a University undergraduate context, plagiarism is most serious when it occurs in work
done for assessment. In assessing essays, project reports, computer programs, and all the
other forms in which work can be presented, it is normally assumed that the work is entirely
the student’s own (except where the student has clearly stated otherwise), and the work is
marked accordingly. If the submitted work is not entirely the student’s own, then the credit
obtained for it is not fully deserved.
Students are always expected to clearly acknowledge any use of other people’s work in
anything submitted for assessment. Unacknowledged use of the work of others is plagiarism.
It is treated by the University as a very serious disciplinary offence, as for any other form of
cheating. Likewise students must declare their own work if they submitted it previously at
this or another education institution.
3. Avoiding Plagiarism
Although you should take great care to avoid any possibility of being accused of plagiarism,
this does not mean that you need to lock yourself away and avoid contact with all sources of
ideas, etc. while you are doing a piece of assessed work. Quite the contrary! The properly
acknowledged use of the work of others is a vital component of nearly all scientific writing
and is in no way discouraged.
It is normal practice when writing essays, technical reports, etc., to borrow ideas and even the
words of others. The important point, however, is that this must always be clearly and
unambiguously acknowledged. If you incorporate into your work someone else’s ideas or
words so that they appear to be your own, it is plagiarism.
There are a variety of acceptable ways of acknowledging the work of others. Examples of
some of the most common ways are given below.
Using References
Most often, it is the ideas rather than the exact words of another author that are copied. In
such cases, a reference to the source of the ideas is appropriate. For example:
A good method for sorting the names into alphabetical order is the quicksort algorithm (Hoare, 1962). The algorithm works basically as follows. We firstly guess at a median value for the data to be sorted. Then we partition the data into two parts .....
The full reference should be given at the end of the essay or report, in a separate section
headed "References." For example:
Hoare, C.A.R. (1962), "Quicksort", Computer Journal, Vol. 5, pp.10-15.
This refers to a research paper by C.A.R. Hoare, entitled "Quicksort" and published in the
periodical Computer Journal. It is conventional in such references to give all the information
included in this example: the author’s name, the date of publication, the title of the paper (in
quotation marks), the title of the journal (in italics), the volume number (in bold type) and the
page numbers.
In references to books, the important information to include is: the author’s name, the date of
publication, the title of the book (in italics), and the publisher’s name. If the information is
taken from just a small part of the book, it may be appropriate to include page numbers as
well. For example:
Knuth, D. (1968), The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2, Sorting and Searching, pp.211-217, Addison-Wesley.
Making Your Own Contribution Clear
It is important to make clear to the reader exactly what ideas are borrowed from elsewhere
and what are your own. The example given above may continue:
Hoare’s quicksort algorithm can be improved for the present problem by modifying the way in which the estimate of the median is computed ..... Our Java class SortedData uses this modified quicksort algorithm .....
This makes it clear to the reader that the student has contributed his or her own ideas: (i) by
modifying the algorithm in the manner described, and (ii) by implementing the algorithm in
the program for the class SortedData. Only the idea of the basic quicksort algorithm has been
borrowed from elsewhere.
In general, if you make heavy use of material from textbooks and elsewhere when preparing
work for assessment, how can you be sure that your own personal contribution is sufficient
for you to be awarded a good mark? This question often worries students. The answer is very
dependent upon the subject matter and other circumstances, so that it is not possible to give a
short and simple answer here. Discuss it with your academic advisor or the course lecturers.
Direct Quotation
Direct quotation is not particularly common in scientific writing, as it is generally not the
words that matter, but the meaning. Normally it is preferable to rewrite someone else’s ideas
in your own words, often changing the terminology and other superficial details to suit the
new context.
However, in circumstances where it is appropriate to make direct use of the words of another
person, those words should normally be included within quotation marks and a reference to
the source of the words given in the usual way. For example:
A common theoretical approach to deadlock is that adopted by Magee and Kramer (1999), who define it as follows:
"Deadlock occurs in a system when all its constituent processes are blocked."
Although this definition is convenient for theoretical analysis of programs, from a practical point of view a much wider definition is more useful. So, instead, we adopt a definition in which deadlock is said to occur even if only a subset of all the processes are blocked, while the rest continue to run as usual. This situation is much more common in practice .....
References
Magee, J. and Kramer, J. (1999), Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs, Wiley, p.107.
4. Avoiding Plagiarism in Computer Programs
Almost all computer programs contain many ideas borrowed from elsewhere. Many also
contain short sections of actual code copied from elsewhere. For example, writing a section
of program to create a new window on screen with a menu at the top of the window is often
done by simply copying a few of lines of code from an example in a programming manual or
textbook, either with or without a few minor changes. This is normally regarded as fair use
and typically requires no acknowledgement.
Any more significant copying of code from elsewhere should be acknowledged, however.
The acknowledgement can be put in comments within the program itself. Reference to the
source of the original material should be made in the same way as in essays or other
documents (except that it may not be possible to use italics or other font variations).
Obviously, it is not possible to put sections of code in quotation marks to indicate that they
have been taken directly from elsewhere. Instead, the comments should make it clear which
sections of code have been copied from elsewhere. Equally, the comments should make it
clear when the basic method has been copied from elsewhere, but changes made to the
details.
5. Disciplinary Action
If plagiarism is found in work submitted for assessment, the action taken will depend upon
the seriousness of the plagiarism.
For further information see our policy at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/studentinfo/plag-
policy.html.
6. Conclusion
In student work as in all other academic work it is important to carefully avoid plagiarism or
anything that could be construed as plagiarism. The author of any piece of work is always
assumed to be solely and totally responsible for that work unless it is clearly stated otherwise.
Any and all use of the work of people other than the named author should be very clearly and
fully acknowledged.
It is much better to play safe and have too many and too detailed acknowledgements than to
omit them and risk being accused of plagiarism, which could result in a severe marks penalty
and/or other disciplinary action.
Appendix IV
Mini-project marking guidelines
MSc in Advanced Computer Science
MSc in Natural Computation
Mini-project marking
Project work in Masters programmes is an important way in which students are trained in research skills and
can develop and practise their skills, including those taught in the research skills module. The marking form is
intended to help assessors by identifying issues of research skills that should form part of the mini-project.
There is also a concern that assessments should, as far as possible, be consistent given that each student is
working on an individual piece of work and in a unique supervisory arrangement.
The marking form has a number of sections concerned, respectively, with the intellectual content of the work,
the process by which the work was carried through and the presentation of the mini-project. It should be
recognised that projects vary widely and so it seems unreasonable that there should be firm guidelines on the
distribution of marks between sections. The supervisor’s recommendations should be discussed with the
Moderator (who will see a larger selection of mini-projects) and an appropriate grade negotiated.
The student will receive a copy of this form as part of the feedback on their mini-project. It is appropriate,
therefore, for supervisors to use this form to record information that will guide students in other project work
and, in particular, allow them to make an informed choice about which of their mini-projects should be the
basis of their summer project.
To: «SupFirst» «SupSurname»
From: Bob Hendley
Cc: Bob Hendley
Date: 26th April 2012
Subject: First/Second Semester Mini-Project
«Title»
Please find enclosed «Firstname» «Surname» First Semester Mini-Project and a marking
form.
The marking form has two parts:
• The first part consists of topics on which you are invited to comment. This part will
be returned to the student.
• The second part is a record of the mark awarded and is not returned to the student.
I would ask both parties to read the report and come to their conclusions independently.
Then the supervisor should contact the moderator to come to an agreed mark. If a
discrepancy between the supervisor’s and the moderator’s mark is greater than 10 the
reasons for arriving at the agreed mark should be explained.
We need this process to be completed by Thursday 3rd
May 2012 (earlier would of
course be appreciated). Completed forms and both copies of the project report should be
returned to Julie Heathcote in the School Office.
Routine enquiries about the administration of the project can be addressed to Bob
Hendley or, in his absence, to Alan Sexton.
School of Computer Science
The University of Birmingham
MSc in Advanced Computer Science
First/Second Semester Mini-Project marking form
Student: «Firstname» «Surname»
Project title: «Title»
Supervisor: «SupFirst» «SupSurname»
Moderator: Bob Hendley
Please return this form to Julie Heathcote by<DATE> . A copy of the completed form will be made available to the student.
The rankings indicated via the tick-boxes are intended to provide a feedback to the student. They are not used to mechanically
compute the project mark.
The items marked with an asterisk(*) are to be completed by the supervisor only.
Comments should be framed in a way that will enable the student to improve on any weaknesses in subsequent projects.
PROJECT
TOPIC, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES (see Appendix A)
Topic developed entirely by the student* Topic developed entirely by the supervisor
Realistic aims and objectives Over-ambitious or too simplistic
INFORMATION SEARCHING (see Appendix B)
Suitable information searching strategy No information strategy presented
Excellent search results No evidence of information searching
WORK
Objectives substantially achieved Very little achieved
Student worked independently * Student required excessive guidance
MANAGEMENT
Project work well planned and carried out * No plan, erratic progress
Regular progress reports * No contact with supervisor
Comments on PROJECT
REPORT
CONTENT
Topic covered in depth Superficial treatment of topic
Understanding beyond taught material Cursory coverage of basic information
Factually correct Inaccurate facts and statements
Comments
ARGUMENT
Appropriately developed aims and objectives Unrealistic or do not address the topic at all
Original and creative thought No evidence of originality
Critical analysis, ability to evaluate evidence Little evidence to support assertions
Logically developed argument Report rambles and lacks continuity
Comments
SOURCES Excellent range of source material No use of sources outside the taught material
Adequate acknowledgement of sources Inadequate acknowledgement of sources
Correct citation of references Incorrect referencing / plagiarism
Comments
STYLE
Fluent writing Clumsily written
Overall organisation excellent Completely disjointed
Informative and accurate abstract and
keywords
No abstract and/or keywords
Comments
PRESENTATION Legible and visually attractive Untidy and close to unreadable
Appropriate length Much too long or too short
Grammar and punctuation correct Many grammatical errors
Correct spelling throughout Much incorrect spelling
Effective use of figures and tables Figures/Tables missing or add little
Comments
THE REPORT INCLUDES Title page
Abstract
Keywords
Contents page
List of figures and tables (where appropriate)
List of references or bibliography
Appendix A – mini-project declaration
Appendix B – statement of search strategy
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
(to be seen by the student)
In particular comments on the following aspects would be helpful:
Are there obvious strengths or weaknesses in the organisation of the material, presentation of results and
interpretations/conclusions?
How much scope for this work to be taken further in the summer project?
School of Computer Science
The University of Birmingham
MSc in Advanced Computer Science
First/Second Semester Mini-Project marking form
Student: «Firstname» «Surname»
Project title: «Title»
Supervisor: «SupFirst» «SupSurname»
Moderator: Bob Hendley
This form will NOT be made available to the student.
Please return to Julie Heathcote by <DATE>
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
PROJECT MARK:
Signed:
Date:
AGREED PROJECT MARK:
If the discrepancy between the Supervisor’s and the Moderator’s mark is greater than 10 please briefly comment on the reasons for
arriving at the agreed project mark.
Signed (Supervisor):
Signed (Moderator):
Date:
Marking guidelines for mini-projects: MSc in Advanced Computer Science and MSc in Natural Computation2
Coverage
(range and understanding of sources; synthesis and focusing of ideas on the topic)
Analysis and where relevant reflection in practice (organisation / coherence of argument; support through example / detail / quotations / references / experience; critical approach)
Presentation (length; use of academic conventions; spelling, grammar, paragraphing, etc; layout; proof-reading)
Where Appropriate: Investigation / Research (questions; rationale; theoretical background; data collection methods, critical analysis; implications)
70% - 100%
Comprehensive coverage of sources; evidence of scholarship in understanding of ideas; originality in synthesis of ideas and focus on the topic.
Shows originality through critical questioning of received ideas; and suggestion of alternative perspectives; meticulous, well-supported analysis; insightful evaluation / conclusion / implications.
Is concise within the requirements of the task; skilled use of academic conventions; skilful layout etc; accurate proof-reading.
Where appropriate: Originality in
identification of questions; excellent theoretical background showing critical appreciation of underlying ideas; skilled research design, carefully and critically applied; insightful analysis with critical / innovative interpretation of implications.
60% - 69%
Competent coverage of major sources; shows depth of understanding of the topic; relationships between ideas cogently made.
Critical review and synthesis of ideas; coherent, realistic and well-supported argument; insightful use of own ideas and experience; perceptive appraisal of implications.
Competent control of length; skilled use of academic conventions; clear layout etc; almost all errors eliminated in proof-reading.
Where appropriate: Perceptive
presentation of questions; cogent, theoretically-based rationale; good research design with critical analysis of data; careful appraisal of implications.
50% - 59%
Shows acquaintance with and understanding of key concepts and issues from a range of sources; ideas synthesised and related to the topic.
Ideas organised and grouped to present a coherent argument; use of examples / detail / quotations / references / experience to support argument; some critical analysis of ideas / evidence.
Length requirements observed; appropriate use of academic conventions; effective uses of spelling etc; careful proof-reading.
Where appropriate; Clear statement of
research questions; rationale provided for research approach taken and some relation to underlying theories made; some critical analysis discussion and presentation of results; appropriate implications drawn from the study.
30% - 49%
Evidence of reading in the field; identification of some pertinent issues; superficiality in treatment of the topic.
Appropriate organisation; some evidence of understanding of ideas and ability to relate ideas and experience; mainly descriptive with limited attempt at critical judgement; occasional inconsistencies.
Length requirements observed; basic command of academic conventions; some errors in proof-reading but largely accurate spelling, etc.
Where appropriate: Research questions
given though may not be fully contextualised; limited rationale; some theoretical background attempted; data collection methods relevant; analysis attempted but may lack depth; some implications examined.
0% - 29%
Limited range of ideas; shows weak acquaintance with sources; ideas unfocused.
Disjointed organisation; unsupported arguments; little use of relevant experience; descriptive without critical analysis.
Length requirements not observed; use of unattributed material; incomplete referencing; presentation marred by language errors affecting comprehensibility; inadequate proof-reading.
Where appropriate: Research questions
unclear; rationale weak; theoretical background very limited; methods not well chosen or misapplied; analysis sketchy or unjustified by data; implications asserted or untenable.
2 The guidelines are based on the Marking Grid developed by the LIGTH unit at University of Leeds; adapted with permission.
Appendix V
Summer project marking guidelines
Appendix V
Appendix V
Guidelines for Reviewers (project markers)
This document provides guidance to the markers of papers submitted as a part of the assessed Summer
Project work for the MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human- Computer Interaction and MSc in
Multidisciplinary Optimisation programmes. It is modelled on the “Guidelines for Reviewers” documents
typically provided by scientific journals and conference organisers. (The source used here is
http://www.elsevier.com/framework_reviewers/PDFs/PeerReviewGuide1.pdf.)
Guidance regarding the paper format can be obtained from the associated document
“Guidelines for Authors” (see “Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix II).
These arrangements have been made to mimic a real-life situation, where the authors submitting papers to a
journal or a conference have only these two sets of guidelines supplied.
The feedback from the” reviewers” (aka markers) is to be provided in the form of reviewer comments, such as
you would typically be requested to provide for a journal or a conference paper.
In the real situation the reviews go to a journal editor or a conference Programme Committee who then make
a decision whether to accept or reject the paper. Instead, the “reviewers” (aka markers) will need to supply
an agreed mark (see the “Individual Reviewer Comments” in “Writing mini-project and project reports”,
Appendix V).
1. Purpose and rationale The students are required to prepare the Summer Project report in the form of a journal paper (this is different
to the mini-project reports, see “Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix I). This approach is
intended to develop an additional set of skills in the students who are enrolled on the research-oriented MSc
degrees (MSc ACS and MSc NC). The assessment of the students’ work is modelled on review process used
for scientific papers.
The students are provided with “Guidelines for Authors” together with this “Guide to Reviewing”, the only
two documents that a research paper author will have access to in real life.
The markers are asked to provide a review such as they would have provided for a journal paper, given the
guidance included in the notes below. The reviews (narrative parts) should be reasonably substantial. In
addition the markers will be asked to summarise their assessment by tick-box ratings in a number of
categories. Each reviewer will then assign independently an individual numerical mark which reflects the
narrative comments and the tick-box ratings. Finally, a mark agreed by the two reviewers will be returned to
the office.
The assessment form is in “Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix V.
2. The review A reviewer will be expected to evaluate the paper according to the following criteria. 2.1 Originality
Is the paper sufficiently novel / interesting? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the paper adhere to
the MSc standards and guidelines (“Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix V)? Is the research
question an important one? 2.2 Structure and contents
Is the paper clearly laid out? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results,
conclusions?
Appendix V
Consider each element in turn:
Title, does it clearly describe the paper
Abstract, does it reflect the content of the paper.
Introduction, does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the
problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should
summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what findings of others, if any, are being
challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis(es); general experimental design
or method.
Is the methodology appropriate? Does the paper accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the
design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to
replicate the research? Does the paper identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a
meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate?
Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the paper make it clear what type
of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
Results. This is where the author should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. Are
the results clearly laid out and in a logical sequence? Has the appropriate analysis been conducted? Are
the statistics correct? Any interpretation should not be included in this section.
Conclusion/Discussion. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem
reasonable? Has the author indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does
the paper support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has
moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
2.3 Previous Research
If the paper builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important
works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?
2.4 Presentation
On balance, when considering the whole paper, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an
important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in
charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical?
2.5 Language
Is an paper written in correct English? Is spelling correct throughout? If it is poorly written due to
grammatical errors, does this make it more difficult to understand the science?
2.6 Ethical Issues
Plagiarism, if you suspect that an paper is a substantial copy of a work/s you are familiar with let the
Project Coordinator know, please cite the previous work/s.
Are there any ethical concerns? Has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of
accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified.
Appendix V
2.7 Supplementary data
The authors may (but do not have to) include supplementary material in electronic format to support and
enhance their research paper. Examples of supplementary materials include source code, executable
applications, movies, animation sequences, high-resolution images, background datasets, sound clips, etc. The
reviewers may (but DO NOT HAVE TO) inspect the supplementary data; the paper must contain all the
essential information needed to judge the project work.
3. The reviewer’s report
Provide a quick summary of the paper at the top of your report. It serves to reassure the author that you
understood the paper.
The main (narrative) part of the report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points
outlined in the preceding section.
Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that
the author is better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments
are your own opinion or reflected by data.
The degree of compliance with the key criteria will be indicated via a set of tick-boxes. You will also be
asked to provide an individual mark. Finally, the two reviewers will have to come to the agreed mark (to be
entered on the supervisor’s form).
To: (Supervisor)
From: Bob Hendley
Cc: (Second marker)
Date: 21st September 2010
Subject: Summer Project: (Student name)
(Project title)
Please find enclosed (Student’s) Summer project and a marking form.
The marking form has two parts:
• The first part consists of topics on which you are invited to comment. This part will
be returned to the student.
• The second part is a record of the mark awarded and is not returned to the student.
I would ask both parties to read the report and come to their conclusions independently.
Then the supervisor should contact the second marker to come to an agreed mark.
We need this process to be completed by 29th
September 2010 (earlier would of course
be appreciated). Completed forms and both copies of the project report should be
returned to Caroline Wilson in the School Office.
Routine enquiries about the administration of the project can be addressed to Bob
Hendley or, in his absence, to Alan Sexton.
School of Computer Science
The University of Birmingham
Advanced Computer Science
Summer project marking form
Student: (Student)
Project title: (Project Title)
Supervisor: (Supervisor)
Second marker: (Second marker)
This form will be made available to the student. Please return to Caroline Wilson by 29th
September 2010..
The numerical marks are intended to provide a feedback to the student. They are not used to mechanically compute the project mark.
The items marked with an asterisk(*) are to be completed by the supervisor only.
PROJECT
WORK
Objectives substantially achieved Very little achieved
Student worked independently * Student required excessive guidance
MANAGEMENT
Project work well planned and carried out * No plan, erratic progress
Regular progress reports * No contact with supervisor
Comments on PROJECT
REPORT
CONTENT
Topic covered in depth Superficial treatment of topic
Understanding beyond taught material Cursory coverage of basic information
Factually correct Inaccurate facts and statements
Comments
ARGUMENT
Appropriately developed aims and objectives Unrealistic or do not address the topic at all
Original and creative thought No evidence of originality
Critical analysis, ability to evaluate evidence Little evidence to support assertions
Logically developed argument Report rambles and lacks continuity
Comments
SOURCES Excellent range of source material No of sources outside the taught material
Adequate acknowledgement of sources Inadequate acknowledgement of sources
Correct citation of references Incorrect referencing / plagiarism
Comments
STYLE
Fluent writing Clumsily written
Overall organisation excellent Completely disjointed
Accurate abstract and keywords No abstract and/or keywords
Comments
PRESENTATION / Legible and visually attractive Untidy and close to illegible
Appropriate length Much too long or too short
Grammar and punctuation correct Many grammatical errors
Correct spelling throughout Much incorrect spelling
Effective use of figures and tables Figures/Tables missing or add little
Comments
ORAL/POSTER PRESENTATION
Topic introduced clearly and at the right level No introduction at all
Key points covered clearly and logically Muddled and/or incomprehensible
Effective use of appropriate visual materials Little or no use of appropriate visual materials
Questions handled well Unable to answer questions convincingly
Comments
ANY OTHER COMMENTS (to be seen by the student)
School of Computer Science
The University of Birmingham
Advanced Computer Science
Summer project marking form
Student: (Student)
Project title: (Project Title)
Supervisor: (Supervisor)
Second marker: (Second marker)
This form will NOT be made available to the student.
Please return to Caroline Wilson by 29th
September 2010.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS
Independent Project mark:
Signed:
Date:
Final Agreed mark:
Signed (Supervisor & Second Marker)
Date
top related