The feedback from the supervisor is important in any case. But it is especially needed if it is necessary to assess the level of implementation of various types of research work. If student work is provided for any competition, then in the list of attached papers this review takes first place along with reviews and acts of implementation. The importance of this document is not in doubt. Indeed, only the head of scientific work can adequately assess the degree of participation of a nominee for a particular scientific award in the research work and evaluate the personal qualities of the applicant.
The opinion of the supervisor is written in any form, but the main points must be reflected in it. At the very beginning it is written on whose work it is given, the name of the work is necessarily given. Most often, the above text is made out in the form of a heading and is highlighted in bold. Then comes the text of this document itself, the content of which, by definition, should be positive. It makes no sense to submit to the competition a job in which even the leader has serious comments. Before proceeding with the description of the document, the head should characterize its author, noting his penchant for research, making independent decisions, and the ability to work independently with literature. The reviewer's tip should also include a list of what the student did and what results he could achieve. This will help the reviewer to get an idea of the work done and its scientific potential. Therefore, it would be nice if the manager describes a possible area of application of the results. It is especially worth noting the presence of implementation acts, if any, of the nominee.
The supervisor’s response to the dissertation has a heading similar to the one described above, but the main text most often begins with the words that the applicant for a scientific degree is engaged in research work from a student’s bench and has established himself as an exclusively educated and erudite person. Then the other positive qualities of the applicant are listed. The head should also note what the dissertation is devoted to, what theoretical and experimental studies the author was engaged in, what results, from a scientific point of view, he was able to achieve. Given that this scientific work is individual, it is worth noting that all the tasks set in the framework of the study were solved by the applicant independently. Equally important is the degree of publication of the results. It is necessary to indicate how much the author of the work took part in the conference; it is worth noting the number of published articles, theses, reports. At the very end of the review, the supervisor must note that the applicant deserves a degree in the chosen specialty.
The manager’s response to the thesis begins similarly and should include an assessment of the graduate’s performance. It is worth noting here that the student knows how to use literature and is able to solve any tasks assigned to him. It is worth noting what needed to be done in the graduation project, and what method of solving the problem the author preferred.
Thus, any review by the supervisor should describe the work itself, the results achieved and promising areas for further research. It is also necessary to characterize the author himself as a promising scientist who is able to carry out various research works independently.