Research Paper: Final Submission
Due by 11:59 PM on Monday, May 4, 2026
Research Paper - Final Submission
Research papers are fairly formulaic, and that’s a good thing - it helps readers know where to look for information, depending on what they want to get out of it.
What should I submit?
Your paper is due at 11:59pm May 04. I can accept extensions only up to May 05, as there are external grading deadlines I need to meet.
You should submit the following (see rubric for details):
- Final paper in pdf or docx format (must include an AI attribution statement — see rubric)
- Stata do-file with all analysis you conducted
- Stata log file with results for analysis conducted in your do-file.
I will grade your papers following the rubric. If you would like me to share comments, you must opt-in by filling out the feedback survey. If you do not fill it out, you will not receive feedback!
Review the research paper checklist for lots of suggestions.
Rubric
| Total: 102 marks | 100 = Excellent | 80 = Adequate | 60 = Marginal | 40 = Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Motivation/Literature (18 marks) | ||||
| Introduction | Introduction provides complete overview of paper, motivates research question using sources | Introduction provides some overiew of paper, motivation clear with limited sources | Introduction vague; motivation minimal | Incomplete introduction, no motivation |
| Research question | Research question well identified, specific | Research question stated, not specific | Research question vague, not answerable | Cannot identify research question in paper |
| Literature | Important literature discussed and linked to topic | Important literature included, not linked to research question/paper | Scattered lit. discussion, poorly linked to topic (missing or irrelevant papers) | Sparse literature, not linked to topic |
| Methodology/Analysis (30 marks) | ||||
| Data | Clear discussion of data sources and any data cleaning; data cleaned appropriately | Data sources referenced but incomplete discussion; some data issues overlooked | Limited discussion of data | No discussion of data sources or cleaning |
| Empirical methods | Methodology discussed and empirical methods applied correctly | Methodology generally correct, with some issues overlooked | Major errors in empirical methods | Fundamental misunderstanding of empirical methods/no microdata used |
| Discussion of results | Results discussed and interpreted clearly | Results discussed, but inadequate interpretation | Results presented without interpretation | Poor discussion of results, no interpretation |
| Choice of evidence | Presented evidence addresses research question, is well utilized | Presented evidence related, only partially addresses research question | Evidence related, but not directly relevant to research question. | Evidence does not address research question |
| Figures and tables | Figures and tables appropriate to analysis, easy to interpret | Appropriate figures/tables included, difficult to interpret | Irrelevant figures/tables included or key figures/tables missing | Insufficient figures/tables, poorly presented |
| Limitations | Limitations discussed and minimized through analysis | Limitations discussed, few steps to minimize | Incomplete discussion of limitations | No discussion of limitations |
| Conclusions/interpretation (18 marks) | ||||
| Conclusions | Clear presentation of conclusions, qualifications, consequences, and contributions | Conclusions established, limited discussion implications and contributions | Fails to make clear conclusions, limited discussion of interpretation/contributions | Cannot discern conclusions |
| Critical thinking | Demonstrates independent and critical thinking | Demonstrates some independent and critical thinking | Limited evidence of independent and critical thinking | No evidence of independent and critical thinking |
| Argumentation | Assertions are qualified and well supported | Most assertions are qualified and well supported | Assertions are overly strong or unsupported | Assertions made in contrast to evidence or without evidence |
| Written presentation (24 marks) | ||||
| Organization | Well organized, easy to understand | Good organization, some parts out of place | Unclear organization | Disorganized, impedes understanding |
| Writing style | Clear and easy to read | Awkward or wordy writing, clear planning | Readable but difficult to follow | Difficult to understand |
| Grammar | Few grammatical and typographical errors | Some grammatical and typographical errors, but do not impede understanding | Moderate grammatical errors/typos | Frequent errors impede understanding |
| Formatting | Meets all formatting requirements | Minor deviation from formatting requirements | Exceeds page limit/major deviation from formatting requirements | Formatting requirements completely disregarded |
| Replication code (10 marks) | ||||
| Do-files and log | Well-documented, easy to read | Detailed documentation, somewhat confusing | Unclear documentation | Little to no documentation |
| AI Attribution (2 marks) | ||||
| AI use statement | Statement identifies all AI tools used and their specific purposes (or explicitly states no AI was used) | — | — | No statement included, or statement does not identify tools and purposes |