Research papers on Njegoš present a distinct challenge, because the English-language scholarship is limited and uneven compared with that on more commonly taught authors. Students may rely on encyclopedia entries, travel websites, or nationalist commentary that colors the history. Grading the research component therefore requires attention to the quality of sources, not just their quantity. A clear standard helps students make better choices and gives you something defensible to assess.

Begin by defining what counts as a reliable source for the assignment. University press books, peer-reviewed articles, and scholarly introductions to translations are good anchors. Websites without clear authorship or sourcing should be treated cautiously, and students should be told how to evaluate them. Providing a short checklist for judging sources makes the standard concrete.

Next, assess how sources are integrated, which is where many papers fall short. A weak paper drops quotations into paragraphs with minimal explanation, while a strong one introduces each source, states what it argues, and connects it to the student's claim. Ask students to show how each source helps their argument rather than merely decorating it. Integration is a better indicator of research skill than any citation count.

Scoring citation accuracy

Citation accuracy is easy to assess but time-consuming to check in detail. Choose a sample of citations from each paper and verify that they match real sources and that the cited pages support the claims made. Fabricated or misattributed citations are a serious issue, and they appear more often now that students can generate text quickly. Make clear in advance that every citation will be spot-checked.

• Sources are reliable, relevant, and appropriate to the level
• Each source is introduced and its argument stated accurately
• Sources are connected to the student's own claim
• Citations follow the required style consistently
• Spot-checked references exist and support the claims made

Teaching research skills alongside grading

Because many students have little experience researching a topic like this, it helps to scaffold the process. An annotated bibliography due midway through the project lets you give feedback on source selection before the full paper is written. A short proposal that states the research question and the planned sources catches weak plans early. These checkpoints improve final papers and reduce the pressure on final grading.

Feedback at the bibliography stage should be concise and actionable. Point out where a source is too general or biased, and suggest a type of source that would be stronger. Praise sources that are well chosen so that students learn what you value. This guidance often matters more than the comments on the final paper.

Workflow for checking many papers

Checking sources across many papers can be tedious, so plan a method. Review the bibliographies first and flag suspicious or low-quality entries, then read the papers with those flags in mind. Keep a table of common problems and use consistent comment language. This saves time and ensures that students making the same error receive the same guidance.

AI-assisted tools can help by checking whether in-text citations match the reference list, noting inconsistencies in format, and flagging passages that make factual claims without support. They do not replace your judgment about source quality or about whether a source is used well. They do, however, handle the mechanical tasks that eat up time. This allows you to concentrate on evaluating the research thinking itself.