View source for Talk:Optimism bias, Strategic Misinterpretation and Reference Class Forecasting (RCF)

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| In general good - there are only a few spelling mistakes
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''||  The topics you chose could have been briefly described in the abstract as a summary
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Needs elaboration
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''||  Make sure you define a clear and specific focus for your article. It is always better to choose something very specific and do an in-depth analysis of the tool/theory/concept, than to cover many and only scratch the surface. Also relate it to either project, program or portfolio management
|-
|'''References'''||  Good references
|-

|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Moritz Gutheil''==
===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===
''You state the underlying problem and that RCF will be introduced as the solution of choice. Relevance to the curriculum is given as you want to elaborate the use of the theory in big projects, maybe a llittle more detail on that ''

===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 structure makes sense and the parts logically build upon each other. The "Big idea" part is already good, the "Application part" needs elaboration to give concrete advice to managers.''

===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===
''Mostly coherent. Only minor mistakes. Reading it over at the end, or having somebody else check-reading it, should do.''

===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 yet. Might follow in the missing parts''

===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===
''I think its very relevant. The problem and technique is described very well already. The concrete tools and limiting factors already make sense but the practical approach on how to apply RCF should be more stressed, like an action plan or something similar. You mention a 5-step plan, maybe include that.''

===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 like that it is clearly centered on Flyvbjerg, the concrete application of RCF in projects could be more central.''

===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===
''Yes well done. A good amount of sources.''

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Mathias Steuch''==
===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===
Fine introduction to article. You could mention some of the pros and cons of RCF to give the reader an immediate idea.

===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===
There is a natural and logical flow to the article. The different parts build upon eachother execpt the limitaions part which is not finised yet. But all in all i makes sense and the artivle is consistent.

===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===
Nice and precise language. Minor errors which will be fixed by a readthrough or two.

===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===
None yet. It might not be needed?

===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===
I think it is super interesting and relevant. I would suggest that you would make some guidelines on how to apply RCF to a project, maybe add a few more examples.

===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===
Much like in Q5 i think it would be nice to have some examples on how to apply RCF to a project. The topic of the article is interesting for a practitioner or academic to read.  

===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===
Very nice references. You should add a bibliography before your references where you give a short overview of what the different references cover.