mini project report format

School of Computer Science

Writing mini-project and project reports

MSc in Advanced Computer Science

MSc in Human-Computer Interaction

MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation

MRes in Natural Computation

MSc in Robotics

Contents General formats for mini-project and summer project reports .................................................. 1 Planning in advance ................................................................................................................. 3 Audience .................................................................................................................................... 3 Structuring your report ........................................................................................................... 4 Producing the report ................................................................................................................ 5 Style ........................................................................................................................................... 5 Feedback and comments ......................................................................................................... 6 Avoiding plagiarism ................................................................................................................. 6

Appendices

I The form of the mini-project report

II The form of the MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human-Computer

Interaction and MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation project report

III Guidance Notes on Plagiarism

IV Marking guidelines for mini-projects

V Marking guidelines for projects

1

General formats for mini-project and summer project reports

Depending on your degree programme, you have to complete between one and two mini-

projects (one in semester 1 and one in semester 2), and one main project (during the Summer

term). At the

completion of each of these projects you will have to write a report. The formats for mini-

projects and the main project are different.

Mini-projects

The mini-project report is to be written in the style of a technical report. There is no word or

page limit on the mini-project reports. However, you are expected to be mindful of your

readers and to produce a report that is of an appropriate and reasonable length. Appendix I

gives detailed guidance on the form of the mini-project report.

The mini-project marking guidelines are given in Appendix IV.

The main (Summer) project

The guidance in this handbook on the main Summer project only applies to students on the

following programmes:


MSc in Human-Computer Interaction


There is separate project guidance for students on other Masters programmes.

The Summer project report is to be written in the style of a journal paper. This report will

have a word limit (to be determined). Detailed guidance on the form of the Summer project

report and the project marking guidelines will be provided in Appendices II and V

respectively.

3

Writing your first mini-project report can be a daunting prospect. This document gives some

simple ideas to help you produce a good report.

Planning in advance You should start to plan your report from the day you begin your mini-project or a project.

The report is one of the products of your work, in the same way as a computer program is a

product.

You should discuss with your supervisor the way in which your work will be reported. You

can produce an outline plan of your report after your first meeting with your supervisor. This

plan will not be detailed, but you can gradually increase the amount of detail in the plan until

it is a complete basis for writing the report. The process of planning can help you sort out

your ideas, to make woolly ideas firmer and to get things in a good sequence.

One common mistake students make is to believe that a plan cannot be changed or that it is a

sign of weakness to change a plan. A plan is another tool to be used to get work completed to

a satisfactory standard. It needs to be treated with no more respect than any other tool.

At first, the plan for a mini-project report might be a list of chapter headings. Next, one or

more of these can be broken down into sections, then the sections into subsections, and so on

until a whole chapter is ready to be written. You may decide to split a chapter into two or

more chapters or to merge two or more chapters into one. Even more importantly, your plan

can help you see where the strengths and weaknesses of your work lie. This means that you

can use your plan to decide when to strengthen your report by some extra work, or when to

pass on to new work. In a similar way you can develop the main sections, subsections etc. for

the main project report.

A less common mistake that students make is to think that their report has to be written in

order from the first page to the last. It is wise not to start to write until you have some level of

plan for the whole report, but you can write parts as you go along. For instance, when you

have the material for your review of previous work, you can write that chapter. It is quite

usual to write the inner chapters before the last chapter and then to write the introductory

chapter as the last part you complete.

Audience

You should consider for whom you are writing the report. Obviously, you are writing for the

two people who will assess your work as part of your course. Your supervisor should be

knowledgeable in the topic and may even know as much about your topic as you do. The

second reader (Moderator) will know less than you, but will be experienced in reading and

writing technical papers.

Probably the best audience to whom you should address your report is personified by the

second reader: an intelligent and knowledgeable person, but not necessarily knowledgeable in

your precise area. You should be able to make your work comprehensible to just such a

person and, if possible, your fellow students.

4

Structuring your report We know that a report must have a beginning, a middle and an end. The first reaction of most

students is to label the beginning “Introduction” and the end “Conclusions”. The middle may

consist of “Method” and “Results”. In a way, this division is true of many technical reports in

computing, but you need to develop a more sophisticated way of thinking about structure.

Structure is the most important issue in writing your report.

A good structure is one that allows you to fit the important points into your report in a good

sequence and to leave out the unimportant points. You should consider the following:

Introductory material

Introduce your aim or aims (e.g., as given on your mini-project or project declaration)

and your objectives. This gives your motivation for the work you are writing-up.

Include your review of previous work - previous literature and previous software.

This review should not be a list of previous papers with some text written around it,

but an account of previous work written from the viewpoint of your aims and

objectives. So, if your work is about planning in robotics and you have read some

relevant papers about planning freight movement, it would not usually be sensible to

spend too much time discussing the detail of moving freight. Make your review suit

your work.

An essential component of a review is a critical analysis of research relevant to your

work. “Critical” does not mean “negative” or “disparaging” (e.g. about work of the

others). It means unbiased and insightful review of relevant literature to1:

“

1. Determine the research and methods previously conducted in the field.

2. Discover what remains to be learned in the field.

3. Highlight mistakes, difficulties, or ethical issues encountered by others [...].

4. Clearly define parameters for your own scientific study.

”

Any comments that you make – positive or negative – should be justified. Similarly, if

you identify any gaps or open issues, you must comment on their significance to the

field.

The middle

This analysis of previous work should allow you to justify your aims and objectives in

a broader context of the field of research, to state precisely what work you planned to

do and to explain why it was worth doing. You should then say what you did and

present the results. When describing experimental studies you must provide sufficient

detail to enable a reader to reproduce your experiments and your results.

Ending material

The results you have produced may be interesting but even more interesting is your

interpretation of those results. You have to tell your reader what you think is the

interpretation (or meaning) of your results.

1 http://www.csd509j.net/CVHS/science/scientific%20literature%20review.doc

5

You should then evaluate your results to show their significance. The significance of

your work can be judged by looking at how your work adds to the previous work on

the topic. So, you should build on your review and analysis of previous work. Your

review should have identified areas where the previous work had gaps: you should

explain to your reader how your work has filled some of those gaps.

There are two common errors made at this point. First, students assume that their

work must be represented as a complete success. This is not true. It is far more

important to evaluate your work with the same rigour as other people’s work. The

second error is to be unduly negative about your own work. Your work must be

evaluated with no more harshness than other people’s work.

It is usual to have a chapter or section called “Conclusion”. This should bring together

the strands of your work, commenting on what has been discovered and what future

work has been identified, including possible ways of overcoming limitations you have

identified.

It is difficult to set a good level of detail for both the introduction and the conclusion. Some

people feel that it should only be necessary to read the introduction and conclusion of a

technical report to get an understanding of the work. Then it is only necessary to read the

middle chapters should you need to know a lot of detail about the work.

Producing the report Reports must be in a word processed or printed form. There is no requirement to use a

particular word processing or document preparation system. In choosing a system, you should

discuss with your supervisor the suitability of the system you propose to use and the need to

develop skills in using unfamiliar document preparation software. Hand-written reports are

unacceptable.

Style There are a number of recognised manuals of style that guide the author in consistent ways of

writing. Two widely used manuals for writing are:

The Chicago manual of style (15th ed) (University of Chicago Press, 2003);

The Oxford dictionary for writers and editors (2nd rev ed) (Oxford English

Dictionary Department, 2000).

There are a number of citation style manuals, for instance

Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed)

(American Psychological Association, 2001);

MLA handbook for writers of research papers (6th ed) (Gibaldi, 2003).

Style manuals are useful in that they allow you to draw on the experience and expertise of the

publishing industry. Citation manuals in particular ensure that you present sufficient

information in a consistent format.

6

Feedback and comments You should always run a spelling checker over your written work and read through it,

checking for typographical errors. It is more difficult for you to see where you may have

expressed an idea poorly: you understand what you mean to say, but your reader is not as

familiar as you with your topic. So, it is a good idea to get someone else to read through your

report.

Your supervisor may be willing to read through some of your report. You should discuss this

issue with your supervisor in advance. You should establish how much he or she will read

and what kinds of comments they are prepared to offer (content; style; typographical errors).

Most supervisors will read some of your report because it is a way in which they can help to

train you in technical writing. It is usually a bad idea for a supervisor to read an entire report

before submission. The reason is obvious. An aim of the course is to make you more

independent and confident in your research work. While studying on the programme, you

should become progressively more confident about producing your own work without the

need for it to be checked by a figure of authority. Hopefully, by the end of the programme

you will be looking to raise general issues of presentation with your supervisor, content in the

feeling that you know how to present and take responsibility for your own work.

You may be able to get a colleague from the programme to read your report in return for you

reading theirs. This has two positive aspects. First, you get your report read by a person who

is likely to be about as knowledgeable as your second reader. They should be able to easily

see where your presentation is obscure. Second, you get the opportunity to see how another

person puts a report together and should be able to learn from the close observation of

another person going through the same process. You should also learn something about ways

of making comments that are simultaneously sympathetic and effective.

Avoiding plagiarism Guidance notes to be found on the following web pages:

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/students/plagiarism.htm

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/courses/projects/2012/guidance.html#SECTION00090

Plagiarism is the use of other people's work so that is appears to be your own. 'Other people'

include other students as well as authors of books, papers, documents or programs on the

internet, etc. Deliberate plagiarism is a very serious offence that is treated in the same way as

cheating in an examination; this could result in expulsion from the University, and as a

minimum it results in disqualification from the project module. The University and the

School are very strict about plagiarism, and you have signed a contract with the University on

that topic.

Be careful to ensure that plagiarism does not occur accidentally. You can quote other people's

work, but you must clearly indicate that this is what you are doing, and include the source.

Direct quotation of narrative material should always be enclosed in quotation marks and the

source of the material referenced either immediately before or immediately after the

quotation. The full description of the source can be given in the References at the end of the

dissertation. (A guide to one style of referencing will be found at

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~pxc/refs/.)

If the material is paraphrased, it should not be enclosed in quotation marks, but the source

should still be stated clearly. Tables, diagrams, etc. copied from elsewhere must also be

7

clearly labelled as such, with reference to the source. You may have used other people's

programs or source code in producing your software. This is perfectly acceptable provided

you make it clear, by acknowledging the source. If you do not, it will be considered

plagiarism.

For more detailed information on plagiarism please see:

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/students/plagiarism.htm.

A copy of this document is enclosed as Appendix III in this guidebook.

Appendix I

The form of the

mini-project reports

Appendix I

The form of the mini-project reports

The report will comprise:

Title page

This should state the following information

• Type of project (e.g. Second semester mini-project)

• Project title

• Author

• Supervisor

• Affiliation (School of Computer Science, University of Birmingham)

• Date

Abstract and keywords

An informative abstract of no more than 250 words. This should state the aim or aims of

the project. Being an informative abstract, it should contain sufficient information about

the outcome and conclusions of the work as to allow the knowledgeable reader to judge

the significance of the work.

There should be up to 10 keywords or key phrases suitable as indexing points in an

information retrieval system.

Contents

The contents page(s) will list the contents of the report, including:

• Abstract

• Contents

• Figures

• Tables

• Chapters (including sections, subsection, etc, where appropriate)

• List of references or bibliography

• Appendices

Figures

A list of figures included in the report (if any). Each figure should be numbered and have

a brief caption.

Tables

A list of tables included in the report (if any). Each table should be numbered and have a

brief caption.

Chapters

Each chapter, section and subsection is to have a number and title. Each chapter starts on

a new page.

Appendix I

List of References or Bibliography

There will be either a list of references or a bibliography. The ordering of entries and the

form of entries must follow some authority. Students may choose to follow well-known

citation standards (e.g. APA manual), the form prescribed by a journal or publishing

house, or some other format.

At the end of the List of References or Bibliography, there must be a statement of the

form of the citation used.

Required appendices

There are some appendices which are required for each mini-project and project.

A Mini-project declaration

A copy of the agreed mini-project declaration form. (This form can be scanned in

using the School Library scanner.)

B Statement of information search strategy

This is a statement of your method of identifying significant literature and related

work (in paper and/or electronic form). This should include, amongst other things:

forms of literature to be retrieved

- significant parameters for the search, e.g.:

- cut-off date

- need for current/recent information

- restrictions as to language

search tools to be used to retrieve information

search statement used in retrieval

There should be a brief evaluation of the search.

Optional appendices

Material that supports the report should be placed here.

Supervisors have differing opinions about the inclusion of program code in reports. A

minority wish to have all programs included in printed form. More commonly any

significant code should be included on a CD attached to the report.

If a significant amount of your work has taken the form of a program, you should

additionally provide instructions on how to run it. You should then include brief details

of what you have made available and where it is located in an appendix.

Appendix I

The University of Birmingham


MSc in Advanced Computer Science / MSc in Human-Computer Interaction /

MSc in Multidisciplinary Optimisation / MRes in Natural Computation / MSc in

Robotics

First semester mini-project

Intelligent optimisation of meta-interpreted parsers

A. Student

Supervisor: P J Hancox

January 2010

Appendix I

Abstract

Unification grammars describe the syntactic structure primarily by their use of feature

structures which allows the linguist to encode many syntactic features in addition to the

syntactic class. Complex labels mean that matching needs to be more than direct equality,

usually unification.

Linguists are able to express several finer distinctions for a word with one syntactic category

by using feature structures. This means that grammars and, in particular, lexicons, are very

much larger and there is much more ambiguity during parsing. Research has focused on ways

of encoding unification grammars so that they more readily lend themselves to practical

implementation in Prolog.

This work focused on two techniques to optimise grammars in a top-down parser. Analysis of

the search tree of the grammar: paths through the search tree were merged or pruned where

determinism could be introduced and cycles in the grammar removed. Classification of

features by the role played in determining the choice of syntactic category: the presence or

absence of some features determines the choice of syntactic category, whereas other features

merely sub-divided a syntactic category. The former class of features was computed during

parsing, while the latter was computed after parsing.

These techniques were compiled into a recursive transition network and tested individually

and in combination against recognised test samples. Results suggest that analysis of the

phrase structure improves speed significantly for all sentences, whereas classification of

features does not add significant improvement, either when used alone or with the analysis of

phrase structure.

Keywords

Natural language processing; unification grammar; Lexical Functional Grammar; parsing,

parsers; recursive transition network; feature structures; syntactic features; constraints;

Prolog.

Appendix I

Contents

Abstract and keywords................................................................................................. ii

Figures.......................................................................................................................... iv

Tables........................................................................................................................... v

1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Page numbering.............................................................................................. 1

1.2 Sections, subsections, subsubsections and so on............................................ 1

1.3 Etc. ...................................................................................................................1

2 Previous work............................................................................................................ 7

5 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 36

References .................................................................................................................. 42

Appendices

A Mini-project declaration

B Statement of information search strategy

Appendix I

Figures

2.1 Re-entrant features in a feature structure ........................................................................ 10

2.2 Equivalent phrase structure tree and dependency tree .................................................... 12

4.1 Instantiation of features by constraint satisfaction .......................................................... 33

Appendix I

Tables

2.1 Interpreters and compiled parsers for unification grammars............................................ 8

4.1 Parsing performance by time and memory usage for test sample 1............................... 34

4.2 Parsing performance by time and memory usage for test sample 2............................... 34

Appendix I

Chapter 1

Introduction

There are many ways of laying out a chapter. The key points are that each chapter should

start on a new page and should have a number and a title.

1.1 Page numbering

Purists like the page number of the first page of a chapter to be at the bottom of the page, in

the centre. On the second and following pages of the chapter, the page number is placed at

the top of the page. On even numbered pages it is on the left-hand side of the page; on odd

numbered pages, it is on the right-hand side of the page.

1.2 Sections, subsections, subsubsections and so on

It is usual to split chapters into sections, subsections, etc, and to number the sections, etc.

Some word processors and document preparation tools do this automatically for you. They

should also automatically create your contents, figures and tables pages. This is a good

feature, because it allows you to change your document without having to manually change

your contents, figures and tables pages.

1.3 Etc.

Appendix I

References

American Psychological Association (2001) Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association (5th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gibaldi, J. (2003) MLA handbook for writers of research papers (6th ed). Modern Language

Association of America.

Hirsch, H (2003) Essential Communication Strategies: For Scientists, Engineers and

Technology Professionals. Wiley.

Lamport, L (1994). LaTeX: A Document Preparation System. Addison-Wesley.

Ritter, R (2000) The Oxford dictionary for writers and editors (2nd rev ed). Oxford

University Press.

University of Chicago Press. (1993) The Chicago manual of style (14th ed). Chicago;

London: University of Chicago Press.

The references have been prepared using:

American Psychological Association (1994) Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association (4th ed). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Appendix I

Appendix I

Appendix A

Mini-project declaration

MSc. in Advanced Computer Science

MSc. in Human Computer Interaction

MSc. in Multidisciplinary Optimisation

MRes in Natural Computation

MSc. in Robotics

First semester mini-project

This form is to be used to declare your choice of mini-project in the first semester of the degree

programme. Please complete this form, obtain the signature of your supervisor and post it in the

appropriate assessed work pigeon hole.

Deadline: 16.00 hrs, 20th October 2010

Name: A. Student

Student number: 01214141234

Mini-project title: Intelligent optimisation of meta-interpreted parsers

Mini-project supervisor: P J Hancox

The following questions should be answered in conjunction with a reading of the handbook.

Aim of mini-

project

To investigate ways of compiling unification grammars so that they can be

parsed more quickly and using less memory.

Objectives to be

achieved To investigate methods of merging search trees to reduce non-deterministic choice; To investigate methods of pruning search trees by removing deterministic sequences; To investigate methods of partitioning features into those that influence the choice of syntactic label (eg NP, noun) and those that subdivide a syntactic label (eg noun singular; noun plural). To implement the above in a parser for Lexical Functional Grammar based on recursive transition networks. To test the effect of the methods described above on parse time and memory

usage for test sentences.

Appendix I

Signed (student) A Student

Date: 9th October 2010

Signed (supervisor): Peter Hancox

Date: 10th October 2010

Project

management skills

Briefly explain

how you will

devise a

management plan

to allow your

supervisor to

evaluate your

progress

There is an agreed plan showing the milestones to be reached during the course of the mini-project. Progress will be reviewed in the regular meetings between supervisor and student.

Systematic

literature skills

Briefly explain

how you will find

previous relevant

work

The important categories are (in order): conference papers; technical reports; journal articles and theses. Conference papers, journal articles and some theses will be identified using Engineering Index, Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index. Reports will be retrieved using WWW report repositories. Dissertations Abstracts International and Index to Theses will be used in more theses need to be found. The search will look for items dating from 1993 to the present.

Communication

skills

What

communication

skills will you

practise during

this mini-project?

Written skills will be practised in the writing of the report. Oral skills will be presented in

verbal reports to the supervisor;

20 minute presentation in SEM580;

presentation to the AI seminar group.

Appendix I

Appendix B

Statement of information search strategy

Parameters of your literature search

Forms of literature

The important categories are (in order):

conference papers;

technical reports;

journal articles;

theses.

Books are not likely to be significant, except for basic programming techniques.

Geographical/language coverage

Important work is likely to be from the North America and Western Europe. Preferred

language is English. Papers in French and German could be read. For papers in other

languages, it would be necessary to reply on abstracts in English.

Retrospective coverage and currency

It is probably sufficient to search retrospectively for five years. This is a current research

topic, so it is necessary to use indexing and abstracting services that are very up-to-date: ie

machine-based services, rather than paper indexes.

Appropriate search tools

Engineering Index

To be used to retrieve conference papers, journal articles and some theses. This is strong on

North American and UK publications (ie English), but less strong on Western European. It

has the retrospective coverage and currency required. Abstracts are available for many

publications. It has the retrospective coverage and currency required. Abstracts are available

for publications in the source journals.

Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Index.

Primarily for journal articles. These will be used as ordinary keyword-based indexes (as for

Engineering Index) and/or for citation searching, perhaps using an early paper or papers

retrieved from Engineering Index.

Dissertations Abstracts International and Index to Theses

DAI will be used if the retrieval of North American theses from Engineering Index seems

poor. Index to Theses will be used if the retrieval of UK theses from Engineering Index seems

poor.

Appendix I

Search statements

The search statements used will be based on:

pars* AND unification AND grammar*

This may need to be refined in the number of recalled items is too large. Keywords from

items that have been found will be reviewed in order to refine the set of keywords used.

Brief evaluation of the search.

[The following is a fictional evaluation.]

The search in Engineering Index retrieved 12 items judged to be relevant of which:

• 7 conference items

• 4 journal articles

• 1 thesis (North American)

The search in Science and Social Science Citation Indexes retrieved 7 journal articles judged

to be relevant of which:

• 5 were retrieved from Engineering Index

• 2 were not retrieved from Engineering Index

2 older and most relevant conference papers retrieved from Engineering Index were used as

the basis of a citation search in Science and Social Science Citation Indexes. This retrieved a

further 11 journal papers which were judged relevant in whole or in part.

Reports were retrieved using the University of Waikato report repository and index, and by a

search using Google Scholar. 2 reports were retrieved that were not the basis of other forms

of publication.

A search in Index to Theses confirmed that there were no relevant UK theses. It was

concluded that there was no need to search Dissertations Abstracts International for North

American theses.

Appendix II

Appendix II

The form of the

MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human-Computer Interaction and


main (Summer) project reports

Appendix II

Appendix II

Guidelines for Authors (project students)

This document provides guidance to the author of the paper to be submitted as a part of the

assessed Summer Project work for the MSc in Advanced Computer Science and the MSc in

Natural Computation programmes. The guidance is primarily on the format of the paper. It is

modelled on the “Guidelines for Authors” documents typically provided by scientific journals

and conference organisers. It draws on material from the publisher Elsevier and from the

IEEE. Guidance on the scientific contents of your paper can be obtained from the associated

document “Guidelines for Reviewers” (see “Writing mini-project and project reports”,

Appendix V).

These arrangements have been made to mimic closely the real-life situation, where the

authors submitting papers to a journal or a conference have only these two sets of guidelines

supplied.

The feedback from the” reviewers” (aka markers) will be provided in the form of reviewer

comments, such as would typically be obtained from reviewers of journal and conference

papers.

In the real situation the reviews go to a journal editor or a conference Programme

Committee who then make a decision whether to accept or reject the paper. Instead, you will

get a mark agreed by two markers.

1. Intended readership Since your paper is likely to be read by members of staff and students whose expertise may

be different to your own, it must be accessible to the non-specialist reader as well as the

expert. In particular it should always contain adequate background and tutorial information.

2. Format 2.1 Length

The length of the main body of your paper, excluding title, author information, keywords,

word count, acknowledgements, references, table and figure captions and appendices, should

not exceed 6000 words. 2.2 Fonts and style

Main body: either single or double column, minimum font size 10pt, recommended line

spacing: 1.5; headings: Distinctive headings should be used for each level of the text (i.e.

sections, sub-sections, sub-sub sections); the recommended maximum level is 4 (i.e. sub-sub-

sub sections). 2.3 Page numbering

Consecutively number all the pages with the exception of the title page.

3. Composition The composition of the paper should be as follows: title page, abstract, keywords, main body

of paper, appendices (if any), acknowledgements (if any), references. 3.1 Title page

3.1.1 Paper title

Concise and informative. Titles are often used in information-retrieval systems. Avoid

abbreviations and formulae where possible.

Appendix II

3.1.2 Author name and affiliation

Where the family name may be ambiguous (e.g., a double name), please indicate this

clearly. Present the author’s affiliation addresses below the names. Indicate the

affiliation with a lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author's name and

in front of the appropriate address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation,

including the country name, and the e-mail address of the author.

3.1 3 Word count

Include the word count for the main body of the paper, including any appendices.

3.2 Abstract

A concise and factual abstract is required (maximum length 250 words). The abstract should

state briefly the purpose of the research, the methods used, the principal results and major

conclusions. In general, an abstract is often presented separate from the paper, so it must be

able to stand alone. References should therefore be avoided, but if essential, they must be

cited in full, without reference to the reference list. Non-standard or uncommon abbreviations

should be avoided, but if essential they must be defined at their first mention in the abstract

itself. 3.3 Keywords

Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of up to five keywords, avoiding general

and plural terms and multiple concepts (avoid, for example, 'and', 'of'). Be sparing with

abbreviations: only abbreviations firmly established in the field may be eligible. The

Keywords are used for indexing purposes.

3.4 Main body of paper

3.4.1 Subdivision of the paper

Divide your paper into clearly defined and numbered sections. Subsections should be

numbered 1.1 (then 1.1.1, 1.1.2,...), 1.2, etc. (the abstract, the acknowledgements and

the references are not included in section numbering). Use this numbering also for

internal cross-referencing: do not just refer to 'the text.' Any subsection may be given

a brief heading. Each heading should appear on its own separate line.

3.4.2 Abbreviations

Define abbreviations and symbols that are not standard in this field at their first

occurrence in the paper: in the abstract but also in the main text after it. Ensure

consistency of abbreviations throughout the paper.

3.4.3 Nomenclature and units

Follow internationally accepted rules and conventions: use the international system of

units (SI). If other quantities are mentioned, give their equivalent in SI.

3.4.4 Mathematical formulae

Present simple formulae in the line of normal text where possible. In principle,

variables are to be presented in italics. Number consecutively any equations that have

to be displayed separate from the text (if referred to explicitly in the text).

3.4.5 Figures and figure captions

These should be inserted in the paper itself, at the appropriate locations.

3.4.6 Tables and table captions

Number tables consecutively in accordance with their appearance in the text. Place

captions to tables below the table body. Avoid vertical rules. Be sparing in the use of

tables and ensure that the data presented in tables do not duplicate results described

elsewhere in the paper.

Appendix II

3.4.7 Footnotes

Footnotes should be used sparingly. Number them consecutively throughout the

paper, using superscript Arabic numbers.

3.5 Appendices

Appendices typically contain material which is not essential for the understanding of the

research, but which could be useful if the reader were to reproduce the described research.

Examples include mathematical proofs, complex derivations of equations, pseudo-code for

complex algorithms, etc. If there is more than one appendix, they should be identified as A,

B, etc. Formulae and equations in appendices should be given separate numbering: (Eq. A.1),

(Eq. A.2), etc.; in a subsequent appendix, (Eq. B.1) and so forth. 3.6 Acknowledgements

Place acknowledgements in a separate (not numbered) section, and not as a footnote on the

title page. 3.7 References

Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and

vice versa). Any references cited in the abstract must be given in full. Unpublished results

and personal communications should not be in the reference list, but may be mentioned in the

text. Citation of a reference as 'in press' implies that the item has been accepted for

publication.

3.7.1 Citations in the text

Citations may be made directly (or parenthetically). Groups of references should be

listed first alphabetically, then chronologically, for example: “as demonstrated (Allan,

1996a, 1996b, 1999; Allan and Jones, 1995). Kramer et al. (2000) have recently

shown...”

The following conventions should be respected when referring to different types of

authorships: (1) Single author: the author's name (without initials, unless there is

ambiguity) and the year of publication; (2) Two authors: both authors' names and the

year of publication; (3) Three or more authors: first authors' name followed by ‘et al.’

and the year of publication.

3.7 2 Reference list

The list of references should be placed in a separate (not-numbered) section.

References should be arranged first alphabetically and the further sorted

chronologically if necessary. More than one reference from the same author(s) in the

same year must be identified by the letters "a", "b", "c", etc., placed after the year of

publication. Examples are shown below

Reference to a journal publication:

van der Geer, J., Hanraads, J.A.J., Lupton, R.A., 2000, The art of writing a scientific

paper, Journal of Science Communication 163(1), 51-59.

Reference to a book:

Strunk Jr., W., White, E.B., 1979. The Elements of Style, third ed., Macmillan, New

York.

Appendix II

Reference to a chapter in an edited book:

Mettam, G.R., Adams, L.B., 1999. How to prepare an electronic version of your

paper, in: B.S. Jones, R.Z. Smith (Eds.), Introduction to the Electronic Age, E-

Publishing Inc., New York, pp. 281-304.

Web reference:

As a minimum, the full URL should be given. Any further information, if known

(author names, dates, reference to a source publication, etc.), should also be given.

4. Supplementary data You may (but do not have to) include supplementary material in electronic format to support

and enhance your research paper. Examples of supplementary materials include source code,

executable applications, movies, animation sequences, high-resolution images, background

datasets, sound clips, etc. Any supplementary material should be submitted on a clearly

labelled CD. Supply a concise and descriptive caption for each file. In order to ensure that the

material is directly usable, adhere to commonly used data file formats. For any executable

files please provide clear user instructions. The reviewers may (but DO NOT HAVE TO)

inspect the supplementary data, therefore you have to ensure that the paper contains all the

essential information needed to judge your project work.

Appendix III

Guidance Notes on Plagiarism

source: http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/studentinfo/plagiarism.htm

1. What is Plagiarism?

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines plagiarise as:

"take and use another person’s (thoughts, writings, inventions) as one’s own."

A crucial phrase in this definition is "as one’s own." In all learning at University it is

completely acceptable to use another person’s thoughts, writings or inventions to aid our own

learning and understanding. Indeed, this is a primary method of learning. We all read

textbooks, research papers, manuals and many other documents, and make use of the material

contained in them. This is perfectly normal and acceptable.

The use of another person’s work does not constitute plagiarism unless we present that work

as our own. When writing essays, project reports, computer programs, or when giving any

form of presentation, it is important that whenever we include the work of others, it is clearly

acknowledged as such.

2. What is Wrong with Plagiarism?

Plagiarism is a form of cheating. Copying the ideas or writings of others and presenting them

as our own ideas and writings amounts to stealing some of the credit for another person’s

work and dishonestly obtaining credit for ourselves. Any form of cheating is to be

condemned, and plagiarism is no exception. Theft of intellectual work by copying that work

is still theft, and should be treated as such.

In a commercial or business context, the laws of copyright and patent are designed to help

protect companies or individuals from the plagiarism of their work by others for commercial

gain. In an academic context, there are no formal laws beyond those of copyright and patent,

but the academic community works within very strong conventions that regard all forms of

plagiarism as totally unacceptable and strongly to be condemned. Academics who are found

guilty of plagiarism have their reputations and careers damaged or destroyed.

In a University undergraduate context, plagiarism is most serious when it occurs in work

done for assessment. In assessing essays, project reports, computer programs, and all the

other forms in which work can be presented, it is normally assumed that the work is entirely

the student’s own (except where the student has clearly stated otherwise), and the work is

marked accordingly. If the submitted work is not entirely the student’s own, then the credit

obtained for it is not fully deserved.

Students are always expected to clearly acknowledge any use of other people’s work in

anything submitted for assessment. Unacknowledged use of the work of others is plagiarism.

It is treated by the University as a very serious disciplinary offence, as for any other form of

cheating. Likewise students must declare their own work if they submitted it previously at

this or another education institution.

3. Avoiding Plagiarism

Although you should take great care to avoid any possibility of being accused of plagiarism,

this does not mean that you need to lock yourself away and avoid contact with all sources of

ideas, etc. while you are doing a piece of assessed work. Quite the contrary! The properly

acknowledged use of the work of others is a vital component of nearly all scientific writing

and is in no way discouraged.

It is normal practice when writing essays, technical reports, etc., to borrow ideas and even the

words of others. The important point, however, is that this must always be clearly and

unambiguously acknowledged. If you incorporate into your work someone else’s ideas or

words so that they appear to be your own, it is plagiarism.

There are a variety of acceptable ways of acknowledging the work of others. Examples of

some of the most common ways are given below.

Using References

Most often, it is the ideas rather than the exact words of another author that are copied. In

such cases, a reference to the source of the ideas is appropriate. For example:

A good method for sorting the names into alphabetical order is the quicksort algorithm (Hoare, 1962). The algorithm works basically as follows. We firstly guess at a median value for the data to be sorted. Then we partition the data into two parts .....

The full reference should be given at the end of the essay or report, in a separate section

headed "References." For example:

Hoare, C.A.R. (1962), "Quicksort", Computer Journal, Vol. 5, pp.10-15.

This refers to a research paper by C.A.R. Hoare, entitled "Quicksort" and published in the

periodical Computer Journal. It is conventional in such references to give all the information

included in this example: the author’s name, the date of publication, the title of the paper (in

quotation marks), the title of the journal (in italics), the volume number (in bold type) and the

page numbers.

In references to books, the important information to include is: the author’s name, the date of

publication, the title of the book (in italics), and the publisher’s name. If the information is

taken from just a small part of the book, it may be appropriate to include page numbers as

well. For example:

Knuth, D. (1968), The Art of Computer Programming, Vol. 2, Sorting and Searching, pp.211-217, Addison-Wesley.

Making Your Own Contribution Clear

It is important to make clear to the reader exactly what ideas are borrowed from elsewhere

and what are your own. The example given above may continue:

Hoare’s quicksort algorithm can be improved for the present problem by modifying the way in which the estimate of the median is computed ..... Our Java class SortedData uses this modified quicksort algorithm .....

This makes it clear to the reader that the student has contributed his or her own ideas: (i) by

modifying the algorithm in the manner described, and (ii) by implementing the algorithm in

the program for the class SortedData. Only the idea of the basic quicksort algorithm has been

borrowed from elsewhere.

In general, if you make heavy use of material from textbooks and elsewhere when preparing

work for assessment, how can you be sure that your own personal contribution is sufficient

for you to be awarded a good mark? This question often worries students. The answer is very

dependent upon the subject matter and other circumstances, so that it is not possible to give a

short and simple answer here. Discuss it with your academic advisor or the course lecturers.

Direct Quotation

Direct quotation is not particularly common in scientific writing, as it is generally not the

words that matter, but the meaning. Normally it is preferable to rewrite someone else’s ideas

in your own words, often changing the terminology and other superficial details to suit the

new context.

However, in circumstances where it is appropriate to make direct use of the words of another

person, those words should normally be included within quotation marks and a reference to

the source of the words given in the usual way. For example:

A common theoretical approach to deadlock is that adopted by Magee and Kramer (1999), who define it as follows:

"Deadlock occurs in a system when all its constituent processes are blocked."

Although this definition is convenient for theoretical analysis of programs, from a practical point of view a much wider definition is more useful. So, instead, we adopt a definition in which deadlock is said to occur even if only a subset of all the processes are blocked, while the rest continue to run as usual. This situation is much more common in practice .....

References

Magee, J. and Kramer, J. (1999), Concurrency: State Models and Java Programs, Wiley, p.107.

4. Avoiding Plagiarism in Computer Programs

Almost all computer programs contain many ideas borrowed from elsewhere. Many also

contain short sections of actual code copied from elsewhere. For example, writing a section

of program to create a new window on screen with a menu at the top of the window is often

done by simply copying a few of lines of code from an example in a programming manual or

textbook, either with or without a few minor changes. This is normally regarded as fair use

and typically requires no acknowledgement.

Any more significant copying of code from elsewhere should be acknowledged, however.

The acknowledgement can be put in comments within the program itself. Reference to the

source of the original material should be made in the same way as in essays or other

documents (except that it may not be possible to use italics or other font variations).

Obviously, it is not possible to put sections of code in quotation marks to indicate that they

have been taken directly from elsewhere. Instead, the comments should make it clear which

sections of code have been copied from elsewhere. Equally, the comments should make it

clear when the basic method has been copied from elsewhere, but changes made to the

details.

5. Disciplinary Action

If plagiarism is found in work submitted for assessment, the action taken will depend upon

the seriousness of the plagiarism.

For further information see our policy at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/internal/studentinfo/plag-

policy.html.

6. Conclusion

In student work as in all other academic work it is important to carefully avoid plagiarism or

anything that could be construed as plagiarism. The author of any piece of work is always

assumed to be solely and totally responsible for that work unless it is clearly stated otherwise.

Any and all use of the work of people other than the named author should be very clearly and

fully acknowledged.

It is much better to play safe and have too many and too detailed acknowledgements than to

omit them and risk being accused of plagiarism, which could result in a severe marks penalty

and/or other disciplinary action.

Appendix IV

Mini-project marking guidelines


MSc in Natural Computation

Mini-project marking

Project work in Masters programmes is an important way in which students are trained in research skills and

can develop and practise their skills, including those taught in the research skills module. The marking form is

intended to help assessors by identifying issues of research skills that should form part of the mini-project.

There is also a concern that assessments should, as far as possible, be consistent given that each student is

working on an individual piece of work and in a unique supervisory arrangement.

The marking form has a number of sections concerned, respectively, with the intellectual content of the work,

the process by which the work was carried through and the presentation of the mini-project. It should be

recognised that projects vary widely and so it seems unreasonable that there should be firm guidelines on the

distribution of marks between sections. The supervisor’s recommendations should be discussed with the

Moderator (who will see a larger selection of mini-projects) and an appropriate grade negotiated.

The student will receive a copy of this form as part of the feedback on their mini-project. It is appropriate,

therefore, for supervisors to use this form to record information that will guide students in other project work

and, in particular, allow them to make an informed choice about which of their mini-projects should be the

basis of their summer project.

To: «SupFirst» «SupSurname»

From: Bob Hendley

Cc: Bob Hendley

Date: 26th April 2012

Subject: First/Second Semester Mini-Project

«Title»

Please find enclosed «Firstname» «Surname» First Semester Mini-Project and a marking

form.

The marking form has two parts:

• The first part consists of topics on which you are invited to comment. This part will

be returned to the student.

• The second part is a record of the mark awarded and is not returned to the student.

I would ask both parties to read the report and come to their conclusions independently.

Then the supervisor should contact the moderator to come to an agreed mark. If a

discrepancy between the supervisor’s and the moderator’s mark is greater than 10 the

reasons for arriving at the agreed mark should be explained.

We need this process to be completed by Thursday 3rd

May 2012 (earlier would of

course be appreciated). Completed forms and both copies of the project report should be

returned to Julie Heathcote in the School Office.

Routine enquiries about the administration of the project can be addressed to Bob

Hendley or, in his absence, to Alan Sexton.




First/Second Semester Mini-Project marking form

Student: «Firstname» «Surname»

Project title: «Title»

Supervisor: «SupFirst» «SupSurname»

Moderator: Bob Hendley

Please return this form to Julie Heathcote by<DATE> . A copy of the completed form will be made available to the student.

The rankings indicated via the tick-boxes are intended to provide a feedback to the student. They are not used to mechanically

compute the project mark.

The items marked with an asterisk(*) are to be completed by the supervisor only.

Comments should be framed in a way that will enable the student to improve on any weaknesses in subsequent projects.

PROJECT

TOPIC, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES (see Appendix A)

Topic developed entirely by the student* Topic developed entirely by the supervisor

Realistic aims and objectives Over-ambitious or too simplistic

INFORMATION SEARCHING (see Appendix B)

Suitable information searching strategy No information strategy presented

Excellent search results No evidence of information searching

WORK

Objectives substantially achieved Very little achieved

Student worked independently * Student required excessive guidance

MANAGEMENT

Project work well planned and carried out * No plan, erratic progress

Regular progress reports * No contact with supervisor

Comments on PROJECT

REPORT

CONTENT

Topic covered in depth Superficial treatment of topic

Understanding beyond taught material Cursory coverage of basic information

Factually correct Inaccurate facts and statements

Comments

ARGUMENT

Appropriately developed aims and objectives Unrealistic or do not address the topic at all

Original and creative thought No evidence of originality

Critical analysis, ability to evaluate evidence Little evidence to support assertions

Logically developed argument Report rambles and lacks continuity

Comments

SOURCES Excellent range of source material No use of sources outside the taught material

Adequate acknowledgement of sources Inadequate acknowledgement of sources

Correct citation of references Incorrect referencing / plagiarism

Comments

STYLE

Fluent writing Clumsily written

Overall organisation excellent Completely disjointed

Informative and accurate abstract and

keywords

No abstract and/or keywords

Comments

PRESENTATION Legible and visually attractive Untidy and close to unreadable

Appropriate length Much too long or too short

Grammar and punctuation correct Many grammatical errors

Correct spelling throughout Much incorrect spelling

Effective use of figures and tables Figures/Tables missing or add little

Comments

THE REPORT INCLUDES Title page

Abstract

Keywords

Contents page

List of figures and tables (where appropriate)

List of references or bibliography

Appendix A – mini-project declaration

Appendix B – statement of search strategy

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

(to be seen by the student)

In particular comments on the following aspects would be helpful:

Are there obvious strengths or weaknesses in the organisation of the material, presentation of results and

interpretations/conclusions?

How much scope for this work to be taken further in the summer project?




First/Second Semester Mini-Project marking form

Student: «Firstname» «Surname»

Project title: «Title»

Supervisor: «SupFirst» «SupSurname»

Moderator: Bob Hendley

This form will NOT be made available to the student.

Please return to Julie Heathcote by <DATE>

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

PROJECT MARK:

Signed:

Date:

AGREED PROJECT MARK:

If the discrepancy between the Supervisor’s and the Moderator’s mark is greater than 10 please briefly comment on the reasons for

arriving at the agreed project mark.

Signed (Supervisor):

Signed (Moderator):

Date:

Marking guidelines for mini-projects: MSc in Advanced Computer Science and MSc in Natural Computation2

Coverage

(range and understanding of sources; synthesis and focusing of ideas on the topic)

Analysis and where relevant reflection in practice (organisation / coherence of argument; support through example / detail / quotations / references / experience; critical approach)

Presentation (length; use of academic conventions; spelling, grammar, paragraphing, etc; layout; proof-reading)

Where Appropriate: Investigation / Research (questions; rationale; theoretical background; data collection methods, critical analysis; implications)

70% - 100%

Comprehensive coverage of sources; evidence of scholarship in understanding of ideas; originality in synthesis of ideas and focus on the topic.

Shows originality through critical questioning of received ideas; and suggestion of alternative perspectives; meticulous, well-supported analysis; insightful evaluation / conclusion / implications.

Is concise within the requirements of the task; skilled use of academic conventions; skilful layout etc; accurate proof-reading.

Where appropriate: Originality in

identification of questions; excellent theoretical background showing critical appreciation of underlying ideas; skilled research design, carefully and critically applied; insightful analysis with critical / innovative interpretation of implications.

60% - 69%

Competent coverage of major sources; shows depth of understanding of the topic; relationships between ideas cogently made.

Critical review and synthesis of ideas; coherent, realistic and well-supported argument; insightful use of own ideas and experience; perceptive appraisal of implications.

Competent control of length; skilled use of academic conventions; clear layout etc; almost all errors eliminated in proof-reading.

Where appropriate: Perceptive

presentation of questions; cogent, theoretically-based rationale; good research design with critical analysis of data; careful appraisal of implications.

50% - 59%

Shows acquaintance with and understanding of key concepts and issues from a range of sources; ideas synthesised and related to the topic.

Ideas organised and grouped to present a coherent argument; use of examples / detail / quotations / references / experience to support argument; some critical analysis of ideas / evidence.

Length requirements observed; appropriate use of academic conventions; effective uses of spelling etc; careful proof-reading.

Where appropriate; Clear statement of

research questions; rationale provided for research approach taken and some relation to underlying theories made; some critical analysis discussion and presentation of results; appropriate implications drawn from the study.

30% - 49%

Evidence of reading in the field; identification of some pertinent issues; superficiality in treatment of the topic.

Appropriate organisation; some evidence of understanding of ideas and ability to relate ideas and experience; mainly descriptive with limited attempt at critical judgement; occasional inconsistencies.

Length requirements observed; basic command of academic conventions; some errors in proof-reading but largely accurate spelling, etc.

Where appropriate: Research questions

given though may not be fully contextualised; limited rationale; some theoretical background attempted; data collection methods relevant; analysis attempted but may lack depth; some implications examined.

0% - 29%

Limited range of ideas; shows weak acquaintance with sources; ideas unfocused.

Disjointed organisation; unsupported arguments; little use of relevant experience; descriptive without critical analysis.

Length requirements not observed; use of unattributed material; incomplete referencing; presentation marred by language errors affecting comprehensibility; inadequate proof-reading.

Where appropriate: Research questions

unclear; rationale weak; theoretical background very limited; methods not well chosen or misapplied; analysis sketchy or unjustified by data; implications asserted or untenable.

2 The guidelines are based on the Marking Grid developed by the LIGTH unit at University of Leeds; adapted with permission.

Appendix V

Summer project marking guidelines

Appendix V

Appendix V

Guidelines for Reviewers (project markers)

This document provides guidance to the markers of papers submitted as a part of the assessed Summer

Project work for the MSc in Advanced Computer Science, MSc in Human- Computer Interaction and MSc in

Multidisciplinary Optimisation programmes. It is modelled on the “Guidelines for Reviewers” documents

typically provided by scientific journals and conference organisers. (The source used here is

http://www.elsevier.com/framework_reviewers/PDFs/PeerReviewGuide1.pdf.)

Guidance regarding the paper format can be obtained from the associated document

“Guidelines for Authors” (see “Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix II).

These arrangements have been made to mimic a real-life situation, where the authors submitting papers to a

journal or a conference have only these two sets of guidelines supplied.

The feedback from the” reviewers” (aka markers) is to be provided in the form of reviewer comments, such as

you would typically be requested to provide for a journal or a conference paper.

In the real situation the reviews go to a journal editor or a conference Programme Committee who then make

a decision whether to accept or reject the paper. Instead, the “reviewers” (aka markers) will need to supply

an agreed mark (see the “Individual Reviewer Comments” in “Writing mini-project and project reports”,

Appendix V).

1. Purpose and rationale The students are required to prepare the Summer Project report in the form of a journal paper (this is different

to the mini-project reports, see “Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix I). This approach is

intended to develop an additional set of skills in the students who are enrolled on the research-oriented MSc

degrees (MSc ACS and MSc NC). The assessment of the students’ work is modelled on review process used

for scientific papers.

The students are provided with “Guidelines for Authors” together with this “Guide to Reviewing”, the only

two documents that a research paper author will have access to in real life.

The markers are asked to provide a review such as they would have provided for a journal paper, given the

guidance included in the notes below. The reviews (narrative parts) should be reasonably substantial. In

addition the markers will be asked to summarise their assessment by tick-box ratings in a number of

categories. Each reviewer will then assign independently an individual numerical mark which reflects the

narrative comments and the tick-box ratings. Finally, a mark agreed by the two reviewers will be returned to

the office.

The assessment form is in “Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix V.

2. The review A reviewer will be expected to evaluate the paper according to the following criteria. 2.1 Originality

Is the paper sufficiently novel / interesting? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the paper adhere to

the MSc standards and guidelines (“Writing mini-project and project reports”, Appendix V)? Is the research

question an important one? 2.2 Structure and contents

Is the paper clearly laid out? Are all the key elements present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results,

conclusions?

Appendix V

Consider each element in turn:

Title, does it clearly describe the paper

Abstract, does it reflect the content of the paper.

Introduction, does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the

problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction is one to two paragraphs long. It should

summarize relevant research to provide context, and explain what findings of others, if any, are being

challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, hypothesis(es); general experimental design

or method.

Is the methodology appropriate? Does the paper accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the

design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to

replicate the research? Does the paper identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a

meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate?

Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the paper make it clear what type

of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results. This is where the author should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. Are

the results clearly laid out and in a logical sequence? Has the appropriate analysis been conducted? Are

the statistics correct? Any interpretation should not be included in this section.

Conclusion/Discussion. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem

reasonable? Has the author indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does

the paper support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has

moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

2.3 Previous Research

If the paper builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important

works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

2.4 Presentation

On balance, when considering the whole paper, do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an

important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in

charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical?

2.5 Language

Is an paper written in correct English? Is spelling correct throughout? If it is poorly written due to

grammatical errors, does this make it more difficult to understand the science?

2.6 Ethical Issues

Plagiarism, if you suspect that an paper is a substantial copy of a work/s you are familiar with let the

Project Coordinator know, please cite the previous work/s.

Are there any ethical concerns? Has confidentiality been maintained? If there has been violation of

accepted norms of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects these should also be identified.

Appendix V

2.7 Supplementary data

The authors may (but do not have to) include supplementary material in electronic format to support and

enhance their research paper. Examples of supplementary materials include source code, executable

applications, movies, animation sequences, high-resolution images, background datasets, sound clips, etc. The

reviewers may (but DO NOT HAVE TO) inspect the supplementary data; the paper must contain all the

essential information needed to judge the project work.

3. The reviewer’s report

Provide a quick summary of the paper at the top of your report. It serves to reassure the author that you

understood the paper.

The main (narrative) part of the report should contain the key elements of your review, addressing the points

outlined in the preceding section.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgment so that

the author is better able to understand the basis of the comments. You should indicate whether your comments

are your own opinion or reflected by data.

The degree of compliance with the key criteria will be indicated via a set of tick-boxes. You will also be

asked to provide an individual mark. Finally, the two reviewers will have to come to the agreed mark (to be

entered on the supervisor’s form).

To: (Supervisor)

From: Bob Hendley

Cc: (Second marker)

Date: 21st September 2010

Subject: Summer Project: (Student name)

(Project title)

Please find enclosed (Student’s) Summer project and a marking form.

The marking form has two parts:

• The first part consists of topics on which you are invited to comment. This part will

be returned to the student.

• The second part is a record of the mark awarded and is not returned to the student.

I would ask both parties to read the report and come to their conclusions independently.

Then the supervisor should contact the second marker to come to an agreed mark.

We need this process to be completed by 29th

September 2010 (earlier would of course

be appreciated). Completed forms and both copies of the project report should be

returned to Caroline Wilson in the School Office.

Routine enquiries about the administration of the project can be addressed to Bob

Hendley or, in his absence, to Alan Sexton.



Advanced Computer Science

Summer project marking form

Student: (Student)

Project title: (Project Title)

Supervisor: (Supervisor)

Second marker: (Second marker)

This form will be made available to the student. Please return to Caroline Wilson by 29th

September 2010..

The numerical marks are intended to provide a feedback to the student. They are not used to mechanically compute the project mark.

The items marked with an asterisk(*) are to be completed by the supervisor only.

PROJECT

WORK

Objectives substantially achieved Very little achieved

Student worked independently * Student required excessive guidance

MANAGEMENT

Project work well planned and carried out * No plan, erratic progress

Regular progress reports * No contact with supervisor

Comments on PROJECT

REPORT

CONTENT

Topic covered in depth Superficial treatment of topic

Understanding beyond taught material Cursory coverage of basic information

Factually correct Inaccurate facts and statements

Comments

ARGUMENT

Appropriately developed aims and objectives Unrealistic or do not address the topic at all

Original and creative thought No evidence of originality

Critical analysis, ability to evaluate evidence Little evidence to support assertions

Logically developed argument Report rambles and lacks continuity

Comments

SOURCES Excellent range of source material No of sources outside the taught material

Adequate acknowledgement of sources Inadequate acknowledgement of sources

Correct citation of references Incorrect referencing / plagiarism

Comments

STYLE

Fluent writing Clumsily written

Overall organisation excellent Completely disjointed

Accurate abstract and keywords No abstract and/or keywords

Comments

PRESENTATION / Legible and visually attractive Untidy and close to illegible

Appropriate length Much too long or too short

Grammar and punctuation correct Many grammatical errors

Correct spelling throughout Much incorrect spelling

Effective use of figures and tables Figures/Tables missing or add little

Comments

ORAL/POSTER PRESENTATION

Topic introduced clearly and at the right level No introduction at all

Key points covered clearly and logically Muddled and/or incomprehensible

Effective use of appropriate visual materials Little or no use of appropriate visual materials

Questions handled well Unable to answer questions convincingly

Comments

ANY OTHER COMMENTS (to be seen by the student)



Advanced Computer Science

Summer project marking form

Student: (Student)

Project title: (Project Title)

Supervisor: (Supervisor)

Second marker: (Second marker)

This form will NOT be made available to the student.

Please return to Caroline Wilson by 29th

September 2010.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS

Independent Project mark:

Signed:

Date:

Final Agreed mark:

Signed (Supervisor & Second Marker)

Date

mini project report format

Documents

miniproject reports

main project

project reports msc

summer project reports

main summer project

separate project guidance

good report

technical report