ORDER YOUR PAPER AND GET QUALITY FOR YOUR MONEY
First Draft of Paper & iThenticate reportObjectives: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 CanvasThe following rubric details how your paper will be graded.OutstandingExceeds ExpectationsMeets ExpectationsUnsatisfactoryArticulation 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/orA central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is highly evident20-24.9%Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly and context of the problem or purpose is apparent; and/orA central purpose, focus, or essence of the work or performance is evident10-19.9%Question, hypothesis, or position is stated clearly; and/orA purpose or focus of the work can be determined0 – 9.9%Question, hypothesis, position, purpose, or focus is not visible or stated clearlyScholarly 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 unfocused0 – 9.9%Scholarly context for the problem/question may be apparent but is not sufficiently demonstratedApplication of Scholarly Method/Technique to Project Design(10%)7.5-10%Method/technique is appropriate for question or purposeData/sources/evidence are expertly presentedAll elements of method/technique are fully developed and articulatedEvidence supports a mature, complex, and/or nuanced analysis of the problem5-7.5%Method/technique is appropriate for question or purposeData/sources/evidence are adequately presentedCritical elements of method/technique are adequately developed; subtle elements are unclear or missingEvidence supports an adequately complex analysis of the problem2.5-4.9%Method/technique loosely supports the question or purposeData/sources/evidence are partially presentedCritical elements of method/technique are partially developedEvidence supports a limited analysis of the problem0-2.4%Method/technique is not appropriate for question or purposeData/sources/evidence are minimally or not presentedCritical elements of method/technique are minimally developedEvidence supports very limited analysis of the problemAnalysis or Interpretation(20%)15-20%Interpretation is explicitly linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model10-14.9%Interpretation is adequately linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model5-9.9%Interpretation is partially linked to theoretical framework or scholarly model0-4.9%Interpretation is minimally linked to theoretical framework or scholarly modelImplications/Impact(10%)7.5-10%Implications, consequences, and/or questions raised by the project are thoroughly exploredLimitations are fully articulated5-7.5%Implications, consequences, and/or questions are adequately exploredLimitations are adequately articulated2.5-4.9%Implications, consequences, and/or questions are partially exploredLimitations are partially articulated0-2.4%Implications, consequences, and/or questions are minimally supported or unarticulatedLimitations are minimally or not articulatedQuality of Delivery(10%)7.5-10%Presentation or performance is of superior qualityDelivery is submitted by the deadline and is free of technical errorsExcellent grammar, spelling, and JAMA style with appropriate paragraphs, sentences, and headings throughout the assignment5-7.5%Presentation or performance is of high qualityDelivery is submitted later but within 48 hours of the deadline and/or has few technical errorsFew errors in grammar, spelling, and JAMA style with appropriate paragraphs, sentences, and headings throughout the assignment2.5-4.9%Presentation or performance is of acceptable qualityDelivery is submitted late but within 48-96 hours of the deadline and/or has some technical errorsPattern errors in grammar, spelling, and JAMA style with appropriate paragraphs, sentences, and headings throughout the assignment0-2.4%Presentation or performance is of low qualityDelivery is submitted later than 96 hours and/or has frequent technical errorsExcessive grammar, spelling, and/or JAMA style errors throughout the assignmentPreviousNext
0 comments