Talk:Benefits of systems engineering

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language	The text can be coherent. It seems that the abstract isn't finalized yet. This is fine, but make sure to not minimize the use of bullets etc. There's also some grammatical errors, so please read it over again.
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good.
Article purpose explanation	Good. However consider further scoping your article. Try to cover less areas, but in more depth? Disclaimer: A complete judgement cannot be made until the abstract is finalized.
Relevance to curriculum	Relevant. However, always ensure this is kept within the realms of project/program/portfolio management.
References	Add some of the listed references in your abstract, if it makes sense to do so.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1:

I think it sums up pretty much what is to be discussed in the article. There are some grammar errors but otherwise it is pretty clear.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2:

It seems like the article is not yet finished so I guess there are still some things missing. However, the structure that is already there is logical and the application chapter summarizes the process very clearly. I suggest putting more details into the article though as it is still a bit like a draft and therefore hard to make a full judgement on the article.

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3:

Language is good, just a few grammatical errors here and there where a letter is missing for example. So I just suggest reading the text over to fix it.

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4:

No figures or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5:

As said before, the article still maybe just has the general information but lacks details but the way it is structured is good and I consider it clear how it is relevant.

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6:

I think it is interesting for a practitioner to read as it looks clear and simple to read and addresses the matter in a clear way.

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7:

No annotated bibliography has been made.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julie Andersen

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

The abstract is very clear and gives a good overview of the key focus and insights of the article. There is a few spelling/grammar mistakes. It is a bit short, but it provides a good information of the article.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

The flow is really good. The argument is not clear yet, but what I would suggest is exactly what is written to come in the limitations. It is important to include the limitations and benefits

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

There are some spelling mistakes, but overall the language is good.

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

There are no figures

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

So far it is not of any real relevance, but I am quite sure it will be when the sections with limitations is done.

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6

Same as above

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

There is no annotated bibliography