{
  "schema_version": "2.0",
  "rubric_id": "RUBRIC-SYNTHETIC-001",
  "title": "Developmental scholarly-work evidence rubric",
  "intended_use": {
    "purpose": "developmental_review_of_scholarly_work",
    "unit_of_assessment": "scholarly_work",
    "allowed_contexts": [
      "draft feedback",
      "research idea feedback",
      "retrospective methods review"
    ],
    "prohibited_uses": [
      "admissions",
      "awards",
      "discipline",
      "funding",
      "hiring",
      "promotion",
      "tenure",
      "other_high_impact_personnel_decision"
    ]
  },
  "construct": {
    "label": "Traceable support for a scholarly work's claims and methods",
    "definition": "The degree to which a scholarly work states a bounded question, situates its contribution, uses fit-for-purpose methods, aligns analysis with claims, and documents transparent and responsible practices using traceable evidence.",
    "boundaries": [
      "The construct applies to a scholarly work, not a person or organization.",
      "Scores describe evidence against this rubric and do not establish merit, readiness, impact, or a decision outcome.",
      "Disciplinary experts must adapt criterion interpretation before use."
    ],
    "limitations": [
      "This template has not established content validity for any discipline or decision context.",
      "Ordinal ratings and weights are judgments rather than natural measurements.",
      "Literature coverage, rater interpretation, missing evidence, and rubric choices can change results."
    ]
  },
  "provenance": {
    "rubric_version": "1.0",
    "owner_role": "qualified accountable assessment-methods owner",
    "source_ids": [
      "SOURCE-DORA-DECLARATION",
      "SOURCE-DORA-INDICATORS-2024",
      "SOURCE-LEIDEN-2015",
      "SOURCE-COARA-2022",
      "SOURCE-HONG-KONG-2020",
      "SOURCE-SCOPE-2021",
      "SOURCE-TESTING-STANDARDS-2014"
    ],
    "content_validity_status": "not_established",
    "content_validity_evidence_ref": "",
    "last_reviewed_date": "2026-07-23"
  },
  "scale": {
    "minimum": 0,
    "maximum": 4,
    "step": 1,
    "anchors": [
      {
        "score": 0,
        "label": "No assessable evidence",
        "description": "Required evidence is absent, inaccessible, or too unclear to assess."
      },
      {
        "score": 1,
        "label": "Limited support",
        "description": "Some relevant evidence is present, but major gaps or unresolved contradictions remain."
      },
      {
        "score": 2,
        "label": "Mixed support",
        "description": "Evidence partly supports the criterion, with material limitations or uncertainty."
      },
      {
        "score": 3,
        "label": "Substantial support",
        "description": "Traceable evidence substantially supports the criterion and important limitations are stated."
      },
      {
        "score": 4,
        "label": "Strong support",
        "description": "Multiple appropriate evidence elements coherently support the criterion and boundaries are handled explicitly."
      }
    ]
  },
  "criteria": [
    {
      "criterion_id": "question_scope",
      "label": "Question and scope",
      "construct_component": "Clarity, boundedness, significance rationale, assumptions, and feasible scope",
      "weight": 0.15,
      "required": true,
      "anchors": [
        {
          "score": 0,
          "description": "No assessable question, scope, assumptions, or success conditions are provided."
        },
        {
          "score": 1,
          "description": "A question is suggested, but scope or assumptions are materially unclear."
        },
        {
          "score": 2,
          "description": "The question is identifiable, with mixed clarity, feasibility, or boundary specification."
        },
        {
          "score": 3,
          "description": "The question, scope, assumptions, and success conditions are substantially clear and feasible."
        },
        {
          "score": 4,
          "description": "The question and boundaries are precise, justified, feasible, and explicitly connected to success conditions."
        }
      ],
      "evidence_requirements": [
        "A stable locator for the stated question or objective",
        "A stable locator for scope, assumptions, and boundary conditions",
        "A stable locator for the significance rationale"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "Significance is context-dependent and must be interpreted by relevant disciplinary experts."
      ]
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "literature_contribution",
      "label": "Literature grounding and contribution claim",
      "construct_component": "Traceable engagement with relevant prior work and a bounded comparison-based contribution claim",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "required": true,
      "anchors": [
        {
          "score": 0,
          "description": "No assessable literature grounding or comparison-based contribution claim is provided."
        },
        {
          "score": 1,
          "description": "Prior work is referenced selectively or the contribution claim is largely unsupported."
        },
        {
          "score": 2,
          "description": "Relevant prior work and comparison evidence are present, with material coverage or inference gaps."
        },
        {
          "score": 3,
          "description": "The work is substantially grounded in relevant literature and the contribution claim is bounded by traceable comparisons."
        },
        {
          "score": 4,
          "description": "Search boundaries, contrary evidence, and comparison dimensions are explicit and strongly support a carefully limited contribution claim."
        }
      ],
      "evidence_requirements": [
        "A documented literature-search or source-selection boundary",
        "Traceable primary sources for comparison claims",
        "A stable locator for contrary, null, or competing evidence considered"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "Absence from a search result does not establish novelty.",
        "Coverage varies by discipline, language, database, date, and access."
      ]
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "method_design",
      "label": "Method and design fit",
      "construct_component": "Alignment of design, data or materials, methods, ethics, and validity safeguards with the question",
      "weight": 0.25,
      "required": true,
      "anchors": [
        {
          "score": 0,
          "description": "Methods are absent or cannot address the stated question."
        },
        {
          "score": 1,
          "description": "Methods are partly described but have major unresolved alignment or validity problems."
        },
        {
          "score": 2,
          "description": "The design is partly fit for purpose, with material weaknesses or incomplete safeguards."
        },
        {
          "score": 3,
          "description": "The design is substantially aligned, reproducibly described, and addresses major validity and ethics concerns."
        },
        {
          "score": 4,
          "description": "The design is strongly justified against alternatives, with comprehensive safeguards, transparent choices, and bounded claims."
        }
      ],
      "evidence_requirements": [
        "A stable locator for the design and method rationale",
        "A stable locator for data, sampling, materials, or corpus boundaries",
        "A stable locator for ethics, validity threats, and mitigation"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "Method quality depends on disciplinary norms and the stated inferential target."
      ]
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "analysis_claims",
      "label": "Analysis, claims, and uncertainty",
      "construct_component": "Fit of analysis, robustness checks, uncertainty representation, and proportionality of conclusions",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "required": true,
      "anchors": [
        {
          "score": 0,
          "description": "Analysis is absent, uninterpretable, or disconnected from the claims."
        },
        {
          "score": 1,
          "description": "Analysis is present but major assumptions, alternatives, or uncertainty are unaddressed."
        },
        {
          "score": 2,
          "description": "Analysis partly supports the claims, with material robustness or uncertainty limitations."
        },
        {
          "score": 3,
          "description": "Analysis substantially supports proportionate claims and reports important uncertainty and alternatives."
        },
        {
          "score": 4,
          "description": "Analysis, robustness checks, uncertainty, alternatives, and claim boundaries form a coherent and transparent evidentiary chain."
        }
      ],
      "evidence_requirements": [
        "A stable locator for analysis procedures and assumptions",
        "A stable locator for uncertainty or qualitative confidence treatment",
        "A stable locator for robustness checks and alternative explanations"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "Criterion-level uncertainty records rater judgment range and is not a statistical confidence interval."
      ]
    },
    {
      "criterion_id": "transparency_integrity",
      "label": "Transparency, integrity, and reproducibility",
      "construct_component": "Complete reporting, traceability, responsible practice, openness where appropriate, and recognition of limitations",
      "weight": 0.2,
      "required": true,
      "anchors": [
        {
          "score": 0,
          "description": "Key procedures, provenance, limitations, or integrity safeguards are not assessable."
        },
        {
          "score": 1,
          "description": "Some transparency elements are present, but major omissions prevent checking or reuse."
        },
        {
          "score": 2,
          "description": "Reporting and provenance are partly traceable, with material gaps or unjustified restrictions."
        },
        {
          "score": 3,
          "description": "Reporting, provenance, limitations, and responsible-practice safeguards are substantially traceable and appropriate."
        },
        {
          "score": 4,
          "description": "The work provides strong, accessible traceability and justified openness or restrictions across methods, outputs, limitations, and contributions."
        }
      ],
      "evidence_requirements": [
        "Stable locators for methods, materials, data, code, or justified access restrictions",
        "A stable locator for limitations, conflicts, and ethical safeguards",
        "A stable locator for contribution and provenance records"
      ],
      "limitations": [
        "Open practice must account for privacy, safety, sovereignty, consent, and disciplinary constraints."
      ]
    }
  ],
  "rater_protocol": {
    "minimum_raters": 2,
    "training_required": true,
    "training_ref": "LOCAL-RATER-TRAINING-REQUIRED",
    "calibration_required": true,
    "calibration_ref": "LOCAL-RATER-CALIBRATION-REQUIRED",
    "agreement_method": "exact_within_step_and_mean_absolute_difference",
    "inter_rater_reliability_status": "not_established",
    "inter_rater_reliability_ref": "",
    "drift_monitoring_required": true,
    "drift_review_ref": "LOCAL-RATER-DRIFT-REVIEW-REQUIRED"
  },
  "governance": {
    "accountable_committee_required": true,
    "committee_owner_role": "qualified accountable human committee chair",
    "conflict_disclosure_required": true,
    "recusal_required": true,
    "appeal_process_required": true,
    "appeal_process_ref": "LOCAL-APPEAL-PROCESS-REQUIRED",
    "accessibility_accommodations_required": true,
    "accessibility_process_ref": "LOCAL-ACCESSIBILITY-PROCESS-REQUIRED",
    "data_protection_review_required": true,
    "data_protection_process_ref": "LOCAL-DATA-PROTECTION-REVIEW-REQUIRED",
    "subgroup_bias_review_required": true,
    "subgroup_review_ref": "LOCAL-SUBGROUP-BIAS-REVIEW-REQUIRED",
    "review_cycle_ref": "LOCAL-RUBRIC-REVIEW-CYCLE-REQUIRED"
  }
}