Topic is communicated accurately and effectively with comprehensive explanation
Research question is clearly stated, focused and maintained throughout
Background and context are integrated and free of major factual errors
Minor methodological limitations such as humidity control and single salt level choice
Irrelevant entries (uranium) in materials table indicate small oversights
Consistent and accurate use of scientific terminology and concepts
Extensive citation of source material (39 references) building clear background
Effective integration of literature into discussion
Some integration of sources is surface‐level or tangential (e.g., skincare uses of SA)
Occasional typographical errors do not affect meaning but detract from polish
Rigorous statistical analysis (ANOVA, Tukey HSD) tightly linked to the research question
Well‐supported discussion and evaluation with clear limitations and realistic improvements
Argument is coherent and well‐structured throughout the report
Absence of confidence intervals and deeper effect‐size discussion limits statistical insight
Limited exploration of potential confounding variables
Minor inconsistencies (µM vs mM conflation) slightly disrupt flow
Clear and appropriate structure with correct numbering, headings, tables, and figures
Comprehensive table of contents and consistent pagination
Effective use of visual elements (photographs, well‐captioned figures)
Inconsistent formatting in references and table layouts
Typographical errors (e.g., “eros bars”) and stray symbols detract from professionalism
