Evaluation criteria of BA/MA thesis

	B	C	D	E
1
2	Evaluation criteria of Bachelor's and Master's thesis
3
4
5		Artificial Intelligence for Materials Science (AiMat) Group
6		Institute of Theoretical Informatics (ITI)
7		Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)
8
9
10	Criteria		Comment	Checklist
11	1. Formalities	Front page formally correct (title, name, logos)	Required
12		Title capitalized correctly	Required
13		Co-supervisor and advisor listed	Required
14		All names and titles complete and spelled correctly	Required
15		Declaration formally correct (Prüfungsordnung)	Required
16		Abstract in German and English	Required
17		Table of contents available	Required
18		General thesis layout acceptable	Required
19		Formatting of references acceptable	Required
20	Criteria		Comment
21	2. Thesis content
22	2.0 Abstract	Quality of abstract (for orientation, see "Nature Summary Paragraph")	Clear, concise, complete
23	2.1 Introduction	Presentation of the topic and the background	Clear, concise, complete
24		Motivation of importance	Clear, concise
25		Research gap, research question	Clear, concise
26		Structure of the thesis	Clear, concise, complete
27		Short summary of main results	Clear, concise, complete
28	2.2 Background, fundamentals	Completeness (breadth)	All relevant aspects covered
29		Level of detail (depth)	Correct level of detail needed for the own contributions
30		Quality	Concisely written
31	2.3 Related work, state-of-the-art	Completeness (breadth)	All relevant work covered
32		Quality of presentation	Clearly presented and concise
33		Quality of discussion	Clearly distinguished from own work
34	2.4 Own methods, own approach	Explanation	Clearly presented and explained
35		Reproducibility	All details present, references to working code
36		Visualization	Intuitively illustrated/visualized
37	2.5 Own results	Quality of explanation (written)	Clearly described
38		Support with diagrams, tables and figures	Well visualized
39		Table headings and figure captions	Clear and present, no discussion, only description
40		Clear axis labels on all figures	Present and clearly understandable
41		Figure complexity	Intuitively understandble figures
42	2.6 Discussion of own results	Quality of explanations (written)	Clear and logical discussion
43		Comparison with related work	Clear and understandable, large amount of baseline comparisons
44		Discussion of implications	Clear and understandable
45		Discussion of limitations	Clear and understandable
46	2.7 Summary	Completeness (breadth)	All relevant topics summarized
47		Balance, highlighting, context	Most important results highlighted and put into context
48	2.8 Outlook	Discussion of further research gaps	Clear discussion, well motivated
49		Concrete plans for further research	Clear and well planned
50	3. General scientific work
51	3.1 Independent scientific work and contribution	Literature research	Systematic and as complete as possible
52		Development of research questions	Clear and well motivated and supported
53		Planning of experiments	Clear plan, clear hypothesis which can be rejected with the experiments, all baselines planned
54		Implementation of code	Well written, well documented, reusable, modular
55		Systamatic execution of experiments	Fully automated, easily reproducible, easily extendible, all results automatically written and documented
56		Systematic data collection	Data clearly and intiutively structured, well documented and publishable
57	3.2 Communication and presentation	Data visualization	Intuitive and clear visualization, clear relation to the hypothesis and research question, innovative and creative ways of visualization
58		Presentation of (intermediate) results	Clear structure: Questions, work done, results, conclusions, open points, further steps
59		Preparation of meetings	Good preparation: Short recap, clear presentation, suggestions for next steps
60		Discussion of challenges	Clear interpretation of the results, positive and negative aspects, suggestions for further steps
61	3.3 Scientific qualities	Creativtiy	Wide background and deep understanding enables creative synthesis of new approaches, not just incremental efforts but novel and promising new viewpoints
62		Critical reflection	Available literature, suggestions by the supervisors, and own results are critically reflected. Open discussion of questions and doubts, based on systematic evaluation.
63		Neutrality	Results are presented in a neutral way. Positive aspects are highlighted with well-supported arguments. Limitations and their consequences are discussed in an objective way. No personal unsupported judgement in either direction.
64	4. Style
65	4.1 General quality	Spelling and grammar
66		Repetitions of information
67		Writing style
68	4.2 Scientific quality	Scientific language
69		Clear scientific vocabulary	introduced, defined, clear to understand
70		Abbreviations	only most relevant abbreviations introduced and used, clear to follow
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100