Provisional Assessed Journal Critical Review

 

SCHOOL OF LAW

Corporate Finance and Securities Law: LAW5556M

Provisional Assessed Journal Critical Review –    Word Limit: 2,000

INSTRUCTIONS

 

  1. The assessment will count for 67% of your total marks for this module.

 

  1. Your completed assessment must be submitted electronically to Turnitin through Minerva VLE by 12 noon on 17 July 2021.  To do this, you must log into Minerva Portal & VLE and click on the ‘Learn’ tab.  Select the appropriate module title (named at the top of this template), then click on ‘Submit My Work’ in the module menu on the left hand side of the screen.  Select the link to the relevant assessment then upload your work.  By submitting your assessed work through the VLE you are accepting the Declaration of Academic Integrity, extending to a declaration that the work is not plagiarised and that the word count is accurately stated.

 

  1. You should complete an Assessed Coursework Cover Sheet with details of your Student ID number, Module Code & Title and Declared Word Count and insert this at the beginning of your assessment before uploading to Turnitin.

 

  1. Work which is submitted after the deadline will be penalised in accordance with University rules as follows: you will be deducted 5 marks for every 24 hour period or part thereof that your assessment is overdue, up to 14 days.  If your work is more than 14 days late, or if the deduction is larger than the mark you receive, you will receive a mark of 0.

 

  1. Extensions of the deadline for submission can only be granted in exceptional circumstances and can only be obtained from James Johnston/Max Broady, Student Support Officers

 

  1. It is your responsibility to ensure that you have submitted the correct version of your work.  If, after making a submission, you claim that you mistakenly submitted a draft, the wrong version or a different assessment, the original version, which was submitted by the deadline, will still be treated as your submission.

 

  1. You should retain your digital receipt of submission.  You are also required to keep an additional copy of your work for your own reference.  In addition you must keep your notes and draft copies of the work.

 

  1. You should ensure that you do not include your name anywhere on your assessment in order that it remains anonymous for marking – however, you should include your Student ID number, module code, module title and state the word count on the header of each page and as the file name of your document.

 

  1. The length of your work should not exceed 2,000 words (excluding footnotes, endnotes, bibliography, and restatement of the assessment question). If you exceed the maximum by less than 10% no penalty will be applied. However, if the total is 10% above the maximum or more then you will be penalised in accordance with following School rules:

 

10% and over – 5 mark penalty

20% and over – 10 marks

30% and over – 15 marks

40% and over – 20 marks

50% and over – a maximum of 0 marks would be awarded.

 

  1. Plagiarism and Cheating

It is essential that your assessed work represents your own work and that it has not been produced in collusion with any other party.  Text and ideas derived from written sources (including electronic sources) must be acknowledged by way of appropriate citation.  If you are not aware of the University’s rules on plagiarism and academic malpractice, please familiarise yourself with the relevant regulations as set out on the secretariat website.  You should also refer to the Academic Integrity Handbook on Minerva VLE under Organisation/Law/Undergraduate/Academic Integrity.

Criterion Distinction Merit Pass Fail
Research and Understanding Excellent grasp of material and understanding of subject area.  Evidence of detailed, thorough and extensive research. Good understanding of the subject area. Appreciation of wider implications and a serious attempt to engage with breadth of relevant scholarship Satisfactory understanding of subject area. Evidence of a reasonably sound engagement with relevant scholarship. May contain minor errors. Superficial or inconsistent grasp of material. Evidence of some understanding of subject area. Limited research and major errors in accuracy.
Argument and Analysis Very high standard of relevancy and of critical thought and argument. Clear evidence of informed, independent thinking. Provides convincing reasons for conclusions reached. Relevant and well-focused material. High level of critical analysis. Evidence of independent thinking. Mainly relevant material, although with a largely descriptive focus.  Satisfactory critical analysis and reliance on a narrow range of sources. Unfocussed and descriptive.  Insufficient engagement with the question. Little or no critical analysis.
Structure and Coherence Excellent structure. Very clear and coherent arguments. Strong introduction and conclusion. Flows well. Good structure and planning. Clear and coherent. Good introduction and conclusion. Some evidence of planning, but argument does not flow smoothly. Satisfactory level of coherence. Organisation needs significant improvement. Lacks coherence and clarity.
Presentation, Grammar and Style Excellent grammar and presentation. Clearly and effectively written in academically appropriate language. Good grammar throughout.  Clearly presented.  Good style. Satisfactory presentation. Competent grammar and written style. Poor presentation, grammar and spelling need closer attention.
Referencing and Bibliography References correct and thorough. Bibliography complete, full and properly laid out. References accurate. Bibliography largely complete and properly laid out. Referencing generally correct.  Bibliography incomplete and needs some attention. Little referencing and such referencing as there is displays errors.  Bibliography inadequate in both content and accuracy.

 

 

 

Deadline: 17 July 2021                                                      Word Count: 2,000

 

Andrea Miglionico, ‘The disclosure regime of credit rating agencies: an obscure veil of compliance?’ (2019) J.B.L. 4, 262-281

Critically analyse the central theme of the above article, paying close attention to how it is positioned within the wider academic discourse.