CCEUB REVIEWER’S RUBRIC

Does the submission meet CCEUB expectations?
Yes Yes,
with revisions		 No
1. SUBMISSION CONTENT
1A. Is the submission relevant to CCEUB members?
Reviewer’s Comments:
1B. Will the submission add value to the repository of teaching resources maintained by CCEUB?
Reviewer’s Comments:
1C. Is the submission accompanied by clear goals and learning objectives?
Reviewer’s Comments:
1D. If relevant, were appropriate methods of analysis used?
Reviewer’s Comments:
1E. If relevant, are the submission’s conclusions suitable given the data presented?
Reviewer’s Comments:
1F. Is the statement of educational impact appropriate?
Reviewer’s Comments:
2. SUBMISSION WRITING / COMMUNICATION
2A. Is the quality of the writing adequate?
Reviewer’s Comments:
2B. If relevant, is the visual presentation of the submission adequate?
Reviewer’s Comments:
3. SUBMISSION FORMAT
3A. Are all references present?
Reviewer’s Comments:
3B. Are references in CSE format?
Reviewer’s Comments:
3C. Are appropriate units and nomenclature used? (e.g. SI units, IUPAC naming system)
Reviewer’s Comments:
Is a statement present in the author’s cover letter indicating the author has read and agrees with the CCEUB Author’s Agreement? Yes / No