General Assessment Form
for Technical and Scientific Writing
The 10 item rating provided below is a global assessment of the technical or scientific material
(news items, thesis chapters, journal papers, scientific publications, etc..) submitted for
evaluation. Specific comments and points for consideration will be noted directly on the material
using the proof reading symbols provided at the end of this form.
Consideration
Assessment
Brevity and accuracy of the title.
/10
Division of the material into well-organised sections.
/10
Successful anchoring of the text by means of a
concise and well-written introduction.
/10
Successful anchoring of the text by means of a
concise and well-written conclusion.
/10
Logical structure of the sentences and paragraphs.
/10
Definition and use of mathematical notation,
abbreviations and specialist terms.
/10
Use of well-chosen and properly formatted tables and
figures.
/10
Use of appropriate references and correct formatting
of the bibliography.
/10
Use of the English language.
/10
Writing style (third person formal).
/10
Notes
The following symbols are used by Prof. Giacomin to provide specific comments and points for
consideration directly on the draft script.
A
anecdotal
The material is not defensible in terms of first principles or
referenced scientific studies.
AL
axis label
Missing or non-optimal axis label.
AR
axis range
Non-optimal axis range.
AU
axis units
Missing on non-optimal axis units.
B
box
An automatically generated box is being used around a legend,
table, text, figure or formula. The box should be removed.
CA
circular argument
The circled material depends for its definition on another section
of material which, in turn, depends on this section for definition.
CE
counter example
One or more examples can be formulated which are opposite to
that being proposed.
CL
clarity
The object, concept or situation being described is not
immediately evident from the written material.
CN
contradiction
The statement contains internally contradictory elements, or as a
whole it contradicts a concept established previously in the text.
CO
colloquial
The word or phrase is either colloquial, or inappropriate, for
technical writing.
D
definition
The name, concept or unit is being used without having
previously been formally defined.
DO
domain
The set of items or concepts being grouped together is not
consistent with the proposed grouping criteria.
E
example
The example chosen for the text, table or figure does not convey
well the desired concept or idea.
F
format
The text, table, figure or bibliographic references is incorrect or
inconsistent with respect to the adopted format.
FALSE false statement
The material contains a factual error, or alternatively, the
structure of the statement leads to a false conclusion.
LA
language
The circled material contains spelling or grammatical errors.
LO
long
The sentence is excessively long. It should be broken down into
a set of shorter, simpler and more concise sentences.
M
meaning
The material is not clear in its meaning. It is either incomplete,
contradictory, or does not separate clearly between multi
possible interpretations.
MU
minimal utility
The material adds little or no new information, thus should be
eliminated so as to save space.
N
name
Multiple names are being used for the same object, concept or
situation. A single, accurate, name should be used everywhere.
OS
order in sentence
The order of presentation of the items in the sentence is
inconsistent with respect to a previous, or a successive, list of
similar items.
OT
order in text
The material is not optimally located in the paragraph or section.
It should be moved to a previous, or a later, point in the text.
PB
paragraph break
The material is not logically joined, therefore it should be
subdivided by breaking the paragraph at the point indicated.
PJ
paragraph join
The material is logically joined, thus the adjoining paragraphs
should be combined into a single paragraph.
PROB probability
The probability of the events or the conclusion being proposed is
actually very low, and thus not scientifically defensible.
R
reason
The reason for making the statement, or presenting the given
information, is not evident.
RD
reasoning deductively The statement contains a error of deduction reasoning.
RI
reasoning inductively
The statement contains a error of inductive reasoning.
REF
reference
The statement requires a reference such that the reader can
identify the source and obtain the background details.
RP
repeat
The material is repeating a concept, or statement, that was made
previously in the text.
S
size
The text, label or legend is too small. The effect of size reduction
in the final published version have not been considered.
SH
short
The material is too short to present the necessary concepts.
Possible improvements include adding additional text, additional
figures, or possibly an entirely new subsection.
SM
semantics
The choice of word or words is not optimal, or is inconsistent with
respect to other similar examples in the text.
T
truncation
The choice of significant figures for the number is incorrect, or,
alternatively, is inconsistent with respect to other examples used.
U
units
Incorrect or missing engineering units.