Talk:Human behaviors in scheduling - Revision history

RikkeA at 23:18, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T23:18:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:18, 25 February 2019
Line 111:		Line 111:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	No reference right now.		No reference right now.

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Rikke 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===
			Minor grammatical errors, some sentences that could be adjusted.

			===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===
			From the abstract, it seems like the author has thought about the topic and how to build up 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===
			Minor grammatical errors that should be corrected to give the reader a better experience but nothing that prohibits the understanding.

			===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===
			-

			===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===
			Topic is highly 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===
			-

			===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 references made yet

Panda Lian: /* Answer 1 */

2019-02-25T21:29:31Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 25 February 2019
Line 26:		Line 26:
	It has a very clear view and seems the following article would be well structured.		It has a very clear view and seems the following article would be well structured.

	The keyword can be used in bold, which would make it easier for readers to get the key point at a glance:)		The keyword can be used in bold, which would make it easier for readers to get the key point at a glance :)


	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===

Panda Lian: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T21:29:14Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Add references in your abstract, if needed, to give more credibility.		\|'''References'''\|\| Add references in your abstract, if needed, to give more credibility.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Ronglian Wei''==

			===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===

			It has a very clear view and seems the following article would be well structured.

			The keyword can be used in bold, which would make it easier for readers to get the key point at a glance:)


			===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===

			Haven't seen the subsequent context yet.


			===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===

			As for now, it's all 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 isn't any figure or table.

			===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===

			Cannot tell it since the article hasn't been fully delivered.

			===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's interesting for a practitioner to read in terms of this topic.

			===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 reference right now.

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. look at "The majority of schedules is created..."

2019-02-19T22:07:52Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. look at "The majority of schedules is created..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. look at "The majority of schedules is created with the '''ambition of enhance the time-management''' during a project and reducing unnecessary risks"). There are other mistakes, so please read the abstract again.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good.
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Well elaborated.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant.
|-
|'''References'''|| Add references in your abstract, if needed, to give more credibility.
|}