Criteria for evaluation of the research paper

The main criteria for evaluating qualitative research paper are:
1. relevance and novelty of the topic;
2. enough usage of domestic and foreign literature on the subject;
3. completeness and quality of the collected empirical data;
4. validity of attracting certain methods of solving problems;
5. depth and validity of the analysis and interpretation of results;
6. clarity of presentation and literacy, quality of design work;
7. ability to debate on the theoretical and practical aspects of the research paper, the depth and correctness of answers to questions from members of reviewers.

Ratings of "excellent" research paper works deserve, topics which are of scientific, methodological or practical interest, the author shows the use of appropriate methods of analysis, modern methods and means of solving the problems. The structure of the work, evaluated as "excellent" should be logical and consistent of the universe goal. In its opinion should be provided with clear, reasonable conclusions that contribute to the resolution of a given problem and outlines prospects for its further development.
The work should be written in a literary language, carefully exported culturally, finding aids - comply with the applicable State standards and these "rules", have applications in the form of diagrams, tables, charts, illustrations, etc.
Condition for obtaining excellent evaluations are concise and logical introduction, the student, which incorporates the basic provisions of the thesis, as well as clear and reasoned answers to questions from members of committee.
In cases where the thesis does not fully meet the requirements listed above, it is estimated a lower score.

The estimate for the research paper may be reduced in the following cases:

1. Execution
1.1. The presence of uncorrected typos and missing lines.
1.2. The absence of names of tables, graphs, and histograms.
1.3. Lack of explanation of symbols and the tables and graphs.
1.4. The absence of the author's interpretation of tables and graphs.
1.5. The absence in the "Introduction" or "Conclusions", or both, and more.
1.6. Errors in the design of the bibliography: a lot of "Deaf" footnotes (when there is a footnote on the author's ideas, but no reference to the work itself, where this idea is being discussed).
1.7. Errors in the design of the bibliography: the bibliography is fulfilled not with the required standard.
1.8. A blank in the table of contents of individual paragraphs or even whole chapters.