Criteria	Excellent (> 90%)	Good (75-90%)	Satisfactory (60-75%)	Unsatisfactory (< 60%)
Introduction (15 points)	Clearly states the research question in a manner that is engaging and relevant to an average reader, avoiding technical jargon or specific variable names from the data.	Clearly states the research question but uses technical jargon or variable names not familiar to the average reader.	Clearly states the research question.	The research question is not clearly stated.
	Does an excellent job in persuading the reader why the research question is interesting and important.	Presents a coherent argument about why the research question is interesting and important. However, it could have been stated better or elaborated further.	Discusses why the research question is interesting and important, but the argument is unclear or incoherent or uses personal anecdotes.	Fails to explain why the research question is interesting or important.
	Provides a concise yet insightful summary of the main results, clearly contextualizing them in relation to how they answer the main research question.	Provides a broad overview of the main results and mentions how the results relate to answering the main research question.	Correctly summarizes the main results, but the connection to the research question is either unclear, incorrect, or missing.	The summary of the main results is incorrect, limited, or missing.
Literature Review (10 points)	Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the related literature. References more than two closely related academic papers, providing clear and accurate summaries of their contributions and their connection to the present paper.	Mentions at least two closely related academic papers, providing clear and accurate summaries of their contributions and their connection to the present paper.	Cites at least two academic papers but makes errors in summarizing them or the papers are not related to the present paper.	Does not cite any academic papers.
	All sources are consistently cited using the Chicago Manual of Style Author-Date system, and a well-organized reference list is appended to the end of the paper.	All sources are consistently cited using the Chicago Manual of Style Author-Date system, and a well-organized reference list is appended to the end of the paper.	Minor errors in citation of sources.	Incomplete or incorrect citations.
Descriptive Analysis (15 points)	Provides a clear description of the data and its sources, and explicitly specifies the dependent variable, primary independent variable, and control variables. In addition, clearly and concisely describes any transformations applied to data or construction of new variables with a brief, intuitive reasoning. The description should include the exact names of variables as they appear in the dataset or subsequent tables.	Describes the data and its source(s) and specifies the dependent variable, primary independent variable, and control variables.	The data or variable description is mostly complete, but lacks a detail or two, or certain aspects may be unclear.	Data or variable description is incomplete, incorrect, or missing.
	Includes a well-formatted summary statistics table. Provides insightful comments on variable averages and highlights other interesting or important observations.	Summary statistics table included, with meaningful comments on variable averages.	Summary statistics table included, but the discussion is either inadequate or includes excessive irrelevant details.	Summary statistics table not included.
	Informative graph depicting the relationship between the dependent and primary independent variable, with properly labelled axes. Clear and insightful interpretation of the graph.	Graph included and meaningfully discussed.	Graph included, but not mentioned in the text or incorrectly discussed.	Graph not included.
Empirical Strategy (15 points)	Clearly and comprehensively describes the empirical strategy used in the paper and presents the estimating regression equation. The equation should include the exact names of variables as they appear in the dataset or regression tables.	Presents the estimating regression equation, but the description is unclear.	Presents the estimating equation, but the equation is wrong, or the description is incomplete or missing.	Fails to present the estimating regression equation.
	Presents the rationale for the regression model, highlighting how it addresses the research question. Explains the choice of control variables by outlining plausible connections between the independent and control variables and their impact on the dependent variable. This explanation should be grounded in reasonable assumptions or evidence, which can be derived from existing literature or logical reasoning.	The discussion effectively motivates the regression model but falls short in depth or detail in some respects, or the reasoning for incorporating the control variables is not persuasive.	Fails to adequately justify the inclusion of control variables, or the explanation is unclear or irrelevant.	Discussion motivating the regression model is not included.
	Offers an intuitive interpretation of the coefficient of the main independent variable, specifically linking it to the research hypothesis.	The main coefficient is clearly and correctly interpreted.	Interpretation of the main coefficient is incomplete or slightly incorrect.	Interpretation of the coefficient is missing or completely incorrect.
Results and Analysis (20 points)	Clearly presents regression results in one or more tables. Includes initial model without controls, followed by models with incremental controls. Results are well-organized and easy to interpret.	Presents results in tables with minor errors in organization or clarity. All required models are included.	Presents most results, but tables are somewhat unclear or missing some models.	Results are poorly presented, difficult to understand, or missing key models.
	Provides a detailed interpretation of the sign, value, and significance level of the main coefficient of interest across all specifications. Insightfully discusses how and why the coefficient changes with each added control.	Provides a detailed interpretation of the main coefficient across all models. The explanation of changes due to control additions is flawed or incomplete.	The interpretation of the main coefficient is somewhat inaccurate for some models.	Interprets the main coefficient incorrectly in all models or interpretation is missing for some models.
	Accurately interprets the coefficients of control variables, providing insightful comments and logical explanations.	Accurately interprets the coefficients of control variables.	The interpretation of coefficients is somewhat inaccurate.	The interpretation of coefficients is incorrect or missing.
	Excellent interpretation of the adjusted R2 across models, clearly explaining its significance in assessing model fit.	Good interpretation, with minor issues in clarity or accuracy.	Basic interpretation with some inaccuracies or lack of clarity.	Fails to correctly interpret or omits adjusted R2.
	Draws detailed, well-justified conclusions that directly address the research question. Demonstrates deep understanding of the implications of the results. Effectively argues whether results indicate correlation or causation. Intuitively discusses omitted variables and their potential impacts.	Clear conclusions, with minor gaps in logic or evidence. The argument is persuasive, but the discussion of omitted variables lacks depth or clarity.	Some conclusions drawn but lack depth or have logical inconsistencies. Discussion of causality is incoherent or incomplete or missing.	Conclusions are vague, unsupported, or not present.
Conclusion (10 points)	Provides a comprehensive and clear summary of the results, covering all key aspects of the analysis. Directly and effectively answers the research question, linking the answer clearly to the summarized results.	Summarizes the results well, with minor omissions or lack of clarity in some parts.	Provides a basic summary of results but lacks detail or has some inaccuracies.	Summary is unclear, incomplete, or largely inaccurate.
	Provides an exceptional discussion, clearly linking the research findings to at least one of the following: future research avenues, policy implications, or the broader context. The discussion is detailed, insightful, and also touches upon the initial motivation for the research question discussed in the introduction.	Discusses the research findings in relation to at least one of the following: future research avenues, policy implications, or the broader context, but the discussion lacks depth or clarity.	Discussion is somewhat superficial, lacks detail, or is incoherent.	Discussion is missing or incomplete.
Format and Coherence (7.5 points)	All the tables and graphs are professionally formatted, appropriately labeled, and numbered, and presented in a manner that enhances clarity. They are strategically positioned where they are most relevant in the text, without disrupting the flow.	Most of the tables and graphs are professionally formatted, with appropriate labeling, numbering, and strategic placement within the text.	Some of the tables and graphs exhibit formatting issues, including missing labels and suboptimal placement within the text.	Most or all the tables and graphs exhibit formatting issues.
	The paper is well-structured, with logical organization of sections and informative section headings that guide the reader.	The paper is mostly well-structured and organized.	The paper lacks a coherent structure.	The paper lacks a coherent structure and is not divided into sections.
Writing and Grammar (7.5 points)	Writing is clear, coherent, and well-structured, demonstrating a logical and seamless progression of ideas.	Writing is understandable but lacks clarity or coherence in one or two parts.	The writing is somewhat understandable, but several parts lack clarity or coherence.	The writing is difficult to understand.
	No grammatical or syntactical errors.	Few grammatical or syntactical errors, but these do not detract from the overall readability of the paper.	A moderate number of grammatical or syntactical errors, occasionally distracting the reader and affecting the clarity.	Frequent grammatical and syntactical errors significantly hinder readability.
	Formal, academic writing style, conveying information in an objective and unbiased manner.	Writing style is mostly formal, with occasional deviations.	Writing style is somewhat formal.	Writing style is informal.