CIS 6930 Spring 26
Data Engineering at the University of Florida
Project Proposal Rubric
Use this rubric when reviewing project proposals (Week 4).
Total Points: 100
Point Conversion
| Score | Points (per criterion) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | 100% of weight | Excellent |
| 4 | 80% of weight | Good |
| 3 | 60% of weight | Satisfactory |
| 2 | 40% of weight | Needs Work |
| 1 | 20% of weight | Incomplete |
Scoring Scale
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent - Publication-ready quality |
| 4 | Good - Strong with minor improvements needed |
| 3 | Satisfactory - Acceptable but needs refinement |
| 2 | Needs Work - Significant gaps or issues |
| 1 | Incomplete - Major revision required |
Criteria
1. Problem Statement (20% = 20 points)
Is the research problem clearly defined and well-motivated?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Crystal clear problem; compelling motivation; significance well-argued |
| 4 | Clear problem statement; good motivation |
| 3 | Problem understandable but motivation could be stronger |
| 2 | Problem vague or poorly motivated |
| 1 | No clear problem statement |
Guiding Questions:
- Can you summarize the problem in one sentence?
- Why does this problem matter? Who benefits from solving it?
- Is the scope appropriate for a semester project?
2. Related Work (20% = 20 points)
Does the proposal demonstrate knowledge of prior work?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Comprehensive survey; clear positioning relative to prior work |
| 4 | Good coverage of relevant work; identifies gaps |
| 3 | Some relevant work cited; positioning could be clearer |
| 2 | Limited related work; missing key references |
| 1 | No related work or completely irrelevant citations |
Guiding Questions:
- Are the key papers in this area cited?
- How does this work differ from or build on prior approaches?
- Is there a clear research gap being addressed?
3. Proposed Approach (25% = 25 points)
Is the methodology feasible and technically sound?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Innovative approach; clearly feasible; well-justified choices |
| 4 | Sound methodology; reasonable approach |
| 3 | Approach understandable but some details unclear |
| 2 | Methodology vague or potentially infeasible |
| 1 | No clear approach or fundamentally flawed |
Guiding Questions:
- Is the approach clearly described?
- Are the technical choices justified?
- Can this realistically be completed in one semester?
- What are the key technical challenges?
4. Evaluation Plan (20% = 20 points)
Are the proposed metrics and baselines appropriate?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Comprehensive evaluation; appropriate metrics; strong baselines |
| 4 | Good evaluation plan; reasonable metrics and baselines |
| 3 | Basic evaluation outlined; some gaps |
| 2 | Evaluation unclear or inappropriate metrics |
| 1 | No evaluation plan |
Guiding Questions:
- What metrics will be used to measure success?
- Are there appropriate baselines to compare against?
- Is human evaluation included where appropriate?
- How will reproducibility be ensured?
5. Writing Quality (15% = 15 points)
Is the proposal well-written and organized?
| Score | Description |
|---|---|
| 5 | Exceptionally clear; well-organized; no errors |
| 4 | Clear writing; good organization; minor errors |
| 3 | Understandable but could be clearer; some disorganization |
| 2 | Hard to follow; significant writing issues |
| 1 | Incomprehensible or severely disorganized |
Guiding Questions:
- Is the proposal easy to read and follow?
- Are ideas presented in a logical order?
- Are there grammatical or spelling errors?
- Are figures/tables clear and well-labeled?
Review Template
## Proposal Review: [Team Name]
**Reviewer:** [Your Name]
**Overall Recommendation:** [Strong Accept / Accept / Weak Accept / Weak Reject / Reject]
### Scores
| Criterion | Score (1-5) | Weight | Points |
|-----------|-------------|--------|--------|
| Problem Statement | | 20% | /20 |
| Related Work | | 20% | /20 |
| Proposed Approach | | 25% | /25 |
| Evaluation Plan | | 20% | /20 |
| Writing Quality | | 15% | /15 |
| **Total** | | 100% | **/100** |
### Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of the proposed work]
### Strengths
1.
2.
3.
### Weaknesses
1.
2.
3.
### Questions for Authors
1.
2.
### Minor Comments
-
### Recommendation
[Explain your overall assessment and what would strengthen the proposal]
Calibration Notes
When calibrating your reviews:
- Strong Accept (4.5-5.0): Ready to proceed as-is; minor polish only
- Accept (3.5-4.4): Solid proposal; address feedback in design phase
- Weak Accept (2.5-3.4): Proceed with caution; significant revisions needed
- Weak Reject (1.5-2.4): Major issues; consider pivoting
- Reject (1.0-1.4): Fundamental problems; requires complete rethinking