Peter Bobkowski reviews Research Sprints materials with Librarian Karna Younger.

Research Sprints selection criteria

The Research Sprints committee uses the below rubric to evaluate applications before sharing with potential team members for review.

Selection criteria for Research Sprints applications are measured on a three-point scale. Applications should address the following characteristics: theme, scale, significance, outcomes, originality, partnership, explanation, and methods.

CriteriaExcellentSatisfactoryWeakScore

Theme

The project perfectly aligns with the theme.The project mostly aligns with the theme.The project does not align with the theme. 
ScaleThe scale of the project perfectly fits into a week's timeline.The scale of the project mostly fits into a week's timeline.The scale of the project does not fit into a week's timeline. 
SignificanceThe applicant significantly demonstrates the importance of the project to their research or teaching.The applicant mostly demonstrates the importance of the project to their research or teaching.The applicant does not demonstrate the importance of the project to their research or teaching. 
OutcomesThe tangible outcomes of the project are clearly defined and highly attainable.The tangible outcomes of the project are vaguely defined and/or mostly attainable.The tangible outcomes of the project are not defined and/or not attainable. 
OriginalityThe project idea is highly original (whole/part) or uses a new approach to the topic.The project idea is mostly original (whole/part) or uses a moderately new approach to the topic.The project idea is not original (whole/part) or uses a somewhat new approach to the topic. 
PartnershipsThe rationale for partnering with KU Libraries on this project is highly logical, well thought out, and makes a highly convincing case for selection.The rationale for partnering with KU Libraries on this project is mostly logical, thought out, and makes a mostly convincing case for selection.The rationale for partnering with KU Libraries on this project is lacking, and does not make a convincing case for selection. 
ExplanationThe explanation very clearly and concisely communicates the project, is grounded in the appropriate field(s), and is interesting and exciting to read.The explanation mostly clearly and concisely communicates the project, is grounded in the appropriate field(s), and is interesting and exciting to read.The explanation does not clearly and concisely communicates the project, and/or is not grounded in the appropriate field(s). 
MethodsThe methods proposed to complete the project are very clear, concise, and well thought out.The methods proposed to complete the project are mostly clear, concise, and well thought out.The methods proposed to complete the project are not clear, concise, and well thought out. 
Total Score