Library Research Forum
Rubric
| Criteria | Excellent 3 | Good 2 | Fair 1 | Poor 0 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Innovation and Originality | The proposal content is groundbreaking and transformational. | The proposal content is original and innovative. | The proposal content is a new take on a familiar topic. | The proposal topic is weak and lacks originality. |
| Timeliness | Proposal is timely. It is emerging or trending. | Proposal is mostly timely. Of interest in the last 1-2 years. | Proposal is somewhat timely. It continues to be a topic of interest within the last 5 years. | Proposal is not timely, and does not address current topics in librarianship. |
| Relevance to library and information science field | The proposal topic is core to the work of library professionals. | The proposal topic is valuable to the work of library professionals. | The proposal topic is somewhat related to the work of library professionals. | It is a stretch to make this topic relate to the work of library professionals. |
| Proposal clarity, organization, and outcomes | The proposal is well written, and organized, and outcomes are clearly stated. | The proposal has only minor issues with clarity, organization, and outcomes. | Some components of the proposal would have benefitted from additional clarification and/or editing. | The proposal is vague and/or poorly edited |
| Research clarity, organization, and outcomes | The research is conducted following a proper and appropriate methodology. The data analysis is appropriate to the research questions. Results and conclusion appear to be soundly grounded in the greater field. | The research contains minor issues with methodology, appropriateness of data analysis, or extrapolation of results and conclusion. | The research is somewhat flawed in its methodology, appropriateness of data analysis, or extrapolation of results and conclusion. | The research is unclear, inappropriate, or weak in its methodology, appropriateness of data analysis, or extrapolation of results and conclusion. |
| Appropriateness of venue | The proposal is appropriate for this venue as it takes a research angle or approach to the topic proposed. | The proposal is somewhat appropriate for this venue. | The proposal is most likely inappropriate for this venue. | The proposal is clearly inappropriate for this venue. |
| Suitability for proposed format | The proposal aims are clear, well- scoped, and suitable for the selected format. | The proposal is somewhat appropriate for the format. | The proposal aims are most likely not achievable in the selected format. | The proposal aims are unclear or inappropriate for the proposed format. |
| Equity, diversity and inclusion | The proposal strongly addresses the EDI acknowledgements. Acceptance would allow members of underrepresented group(s) to present their work or otherwise broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. | The proposal addresses the EDI acknowledgements Acceptance is likely to broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. | The proposal addresses the EDI acknowledgements, but acceptance is unlikely to broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. | The proposal does not sufficiently address the EDI acknowledgements. Acceptance is unlikely to broaden the perspectives of conference attendees. |
Proposals that receive the highest cumulative score, as per the rubric above, will be invited to present over those with lower scores.
Source The rubric above is derived from that of the ACRL 2023 conference
https://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/conferences/ACRL%202023%20Rubric.pdf
