First Draft of Paper & iThenticate report Objectives: Develop and revise a pape


First Draft of Paper & iThenticate report
Objectives:
Develop and revise a paper of publishable quality based on the applied scholarly project that advances healthcare and challenges practice standards.
Convey ideas with appropriate organization, voice, word choice, and sentence fluency.
Format the paper based on the author guidelines of the target journal.
All writing assignments are expected to follow the Journal of the American Medical Association Manual of Style (JAMA). The updated reference manual can be found here: https://www.jamamanualofstyle.com/ (Links to an external site.)
By the end of week 5, please submit the first draft of your paper via Canvas along with your iThenticate report.
Your paper should be written in JAMA style. Your paper should include an introduction, discussion, conclusion, and appropriate headings that comply with the requirements of your selected journal and type of article. The length and references should follow your targeted journal and type of article.
Submit your Similarity report via Canvas
The following rubric details how your paper will be graded.
Outstanding
Exceeds Expectations
Meets Expectations
Unsatisfactory
Articulation of Problem, Gap, Purpose, or Focus
(25%)
25-30%
Question, hypothesis, or position is articulated and defended in the context of the problem or purpose; and/or
A central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is highly evident
20-24.9%
Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly and context of the problem or purpose is apparent; and/or
A central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is evident
10-19.9%
Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly; and/or
A purpose or focus of the work can be determined
0 – 9.9%
Question, hypothesis, position, purpose, or focus is not visible or stated clearly
Scholarly Context
(25%)
25-30%
Comprehensively places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre)
20-24.9%
Sufficiently places problem/question in appropriate scholarly context (scholarly literature, theory, model, or genre)
10-19.9%
Partially places problem/question in scholarly context; some critical elements are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused
0 – 9.9%
Scholarly context for the problem/question may be apparent but is not sufficiently demonstrated
Application of Scholarly Method/
Technique to Project Design
(10%)
7.5-10%
Method/technique is appropriate for question or purpose
Data/sources/evidence are expertly presented
All elements of method/technique are fully developed and articulated
Evidence supports a mature, complex, and/or nuanced analysis of the problem
5-7.5%
Method/technique is appropriate for question or purpose
Data/sources/evidence are adequately presented
Critical elements of method/technique are adequately developed; subtle elements are unclear or missing
Evidence supports an adequately complex analysis of the problem
2.5-4.9%
Method/technique loosely supports the question or purpose
Data/sources/evidence are partially presented
Critical elements of method/technique are partially developed
Evidence supports a limited analysis of the problem
0-2.4%
Method/technique is not appropriate for question or purpose
Data/sources/evidence are minimally or not presented
Critical elements of method/technique are minimally developed
Evidence supports very limited analysis of the problem
Analysis or Interpretation
(20%)
15-20%
Interpretation is explicitly linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model
10-14.9%
Interpretation is adequately linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model
5-9.9%
Interpretation is partially linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model
0-4.9%
Interpretation is minimally linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model
Implications/
Impact
(10%)
7.5-10%
Implications, consequences, and/or questions raised by the project are thoroughly explored
Limitations are fully articulated
5-7.5%
Implications, consequences, and/or questions are adequately explored
Limitations are adequately articulated
2.5-4.9%
Implications, consequences, and/or questions are partially explored
Limitations are partially articulated
0-2.4%
Implications, consequences, and/or questions are minimally supported or unarticulated
Limitations are minimally or not articulated
Quality of Delivery
(10%)
7.5-10%
Presentation or performance is of superior quality
Delivery is submitted by the deadline and is free of technical errors
Excellent grammar, spelling, and JAMA style with appropriate paragraphs, sentences, and headings throughout the assignment
5-7.5%
Presentation or performance is of high quality
Delivery is submitted later but within 48 hours of the deadline and/or has few technical errors
Few errors in grammar, spelling, and JAMA style with appropriate paragraphs, sentences, and headings throughout the assignment
2.5-4.9%
Presentation or performance is of acceptable quality
Delivery is submitted late but within 48-96 hours of the deadline and/or has some technical errors
Pattern errors in grammar, spelling, and JAMA style with appropriate paragraphs, sentences, and headings throughout the assignment
0-2.4%
Presentation or performance is of low quality
Delivery is submitted later than 96 hours and/or has frequent technical errors
Excessive grammar, spelling, and/or JAMA style errors throughout the assignment
PreviousNext


Leave a Reply