Marking criteria#
Warning
Mitigating circumstances are handled separately and must not influence academic judgment during marking.
Project Plan#
| Mark (out of 5) | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 – Excellent |
A clear, persuasive, and well-organised project plan that demonstrates:
|
| 4 – Good |
A solid and complete project plan that covers all key aspects with reasonable clarity:
|
| 3 – Satisfactory |
An acceptable but underdeveloped project plan that meets basic expectations:
|
| 2 – Weak |
A project plan that raises concerns about feasibility or understanding:
|
| 1 – Poor |
An incomplete or unviable project plan that does not meet expectations:
|
| 0 – No Submission | A project plan or academic integrity declaration form that is not submitted by the deadline. Refer to the late submission policy for penalties. |
Final Report and Code#
The final report and code are marked together - as a whole - according to the marking criteria below. They do not carry separate weightings. The viva is not assessed separately, but serves two key purposes: (i) it provides an opportunity for the student and examiners to clarify aspects of the project that may not be fully evident from the written report and code; and (ii) to establish that the submitted work is the student’s own by requiring them to defend it under critical questioning. The final agreed mark is awarded on the basis of the overall submission, informed by the viva discussion.
Warning
To achieve a pass-level mark or higher, a project must demonstrate both the volume and quality of results expected from a three-month full-time committment, even when accounting for technical challenges.
Distinction (70 - 100) - publishable as-is or with minor modifications#
A project has sufficient quality and originality and contains substantial amount of results to be publishable as it stands or with minor modifications to its scientific content.
The project fully or substantially addresses a complex research question or commercial challenge.
The project involves moderate to major risk in its objectives, indicating ambition and the potential for significant impact.
Potentially moderate modifications to presentation, phrasing, or formatting can be tolerated, but the scientific content should remain largely intact.
The work demonstrates new insights into the topic with an innovative approach, carried out diligently and professionally.
It shows significant breadth and depth with sound background research, an exemplary implementation, and a well-structured and well-presented report.
| Mark Range | Description |
|---|---|
| 90 - 100 | Outstanding deliverables, making an original contribution by questioning or challenging prevailing paradigms, offering new insights informed by critical evaluation of current research practice, and clearly demonstrating innovative/creative thinking. Also, it contains a substantial original contribution from the student. The report is publishable in a high-quality journal as is or potentially marketable. Given the timescale, there should be no notable weaknesses beyond those reasonably expected. The quality of the report is excellent. |
| 80 - 89 | Excellent throughout, showing detailed knowledge and systematic understanding of key aspects, with strong evidence of independent thinking and original insights on the subject. The report contains a significant portion of the results and analysis required for publication in a reputable journal, with minor modifications to the presentation and minimal additional work. |
| 70 - 79 | A thorough grasp of the subject, showing the ability to synthesise and criticise, with critical use of existing literature, although occasionally falling below a general level of excellence in original insights and innovative thinking. The project demonstrates technical analysis comparable to that seen in high-quality journals. With some extension and re-organisation, the body of work presented could form the skeleton of a publication in a reputable journal or a professional technical report, with minor modifications to the text and figures and only a small amount of additional work. |
Merit (60 - 69) - publishable but only with major revision#
The project is not publishable in its current form, requiring moderate to major changes to its scientific content. Its originality, significance, or rigour are somewhat below publishable standards.
Demonstrates good breadth and depth, but the volume or quality of results is insufficient for publication.
May lack novelty, but shows strong technical competence and professional execution.
The project involves moderate risk in its objectives, indicating ambition without full resolution.
The implementation is sound and well-structured, though there is room for improvement in design or performance.
| Mark Range | Description |
|---|---|
| 65 - 69 | The report demonstrates a very good grasp of the subject and evidence of ability to synthesise and criticise, including an understanding of existing literature but falling short of excellence in one or more of these aspects. The code is robust and functional, addresses a challenging problem, and demonstrates significant ingenuity. |
| 60 - 64 | The report demonstrates a good grasp of the subject and some evidence of the ability to synthesise and criticise. The software is robust and functional but addresses a relatively straightforward problem with some difficult challenges and demonstrates little ingenuity. |
Pass (50 - 59) - correct but low-risk and lacking originality#
A competent project that demonstrates the ability to solve well-defined, low- to moderate-risk problems effectively.
Shows a reasonable understanding of relevant concepts and facts, but limited evidence of synthesis or critical evaluation.
The project demonstrates low ambition in its objectives or fails to address the more challenging aspects of the problem area.
Lacks originality or creative thinking, despite being successfully executed.
| Mark Range | Description |
|---|---|
| 55 - 59 | The report shows a clear understanding in most places, but the standard of work is variable. The code is functional but has a few obvious gaps. |
| 50 - 54 | The report has noticeable gaps in knowledge or understanding in some key areas or lacks insight. The code is mostly functional but has significant limitations in scope or implementation. |
Fail (0 - 49) - below acceptable standard#
The volume and quality of results fail to justify three months of full-time work, even when accounting for technical challenges.
The project falls below an acceptable standard, showing no significant grasp of the subject’s key issues.
There is no more than a rote reimplementation of existing solutions or their application to low-risk problems or failed solutions to more general ones.
| Mark Range | Description |
|---|---|
| 40 - 49 | The report demonstrates a superficial understanding of the key issues of the subject, although lacking in focus. The code is fragile or flawed in places but shows scope to be improved to an acceptable standard. |
| 30 - 39 | Although the report is of significant length, it incompletely or incoherently addresses the key issues or shows a serious misunderstanding of the subject. The code is missing significant functionality or has multiple significant errors in implementation. |
| 20 - 29 | The report shows some attempts to address the subject but has serious flaws throughout, with nothing of substance present. The code is fragmentary, incomplete, or wholly flawed in implementation. |
| 0 - 19 | The report has multiple serious errors throughout, largely consists of irrelevant material, is far too brief or is absent. The code shows no more than a skeleton of work towards a potential solution. |
| 0 | A final report, code, or academic integrity declaration are not submitted by the deadline. Refer to the late submission policy for penalties. |
Late Submission#
According to the Policy on Late Submission of Assessment, the following penalties apply:
Timing of Submission |
Penalty Applied |
|---|---|
Up to 1 day (24 hours) after the deadline |
Capped at 50 |
More than 1 day (24 hours) after the deadline |
Mark of zero (0) |
Late submissions may still be marked to provide feedback to the student, if the department considers it educationally helpful and the work was submitted within a reasonable time.
If a student has an approved deadline extension, the penalty is based on the extended deadline.
The timing is based on calendar days, not working days.
The same late submission policy applies to all assessed components of the project, including the academic integrity declaration.
Final mark calculation#
Your project plan is worth 5% of your total IRP mark, and your final submission will be worth 95%. Your final IRP mark will be calculated as:
(Project Plan Mark) + (Final Submission Mark × 0.95).
For example, if you received 4 points for your project plan and score 70 on your final submission, your total IRP mark would be:
4 + (70 × 0.95) = 4 + 66.5 = 70.5%.