Talk:Organisational resilience with mindfulness
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Josef: Hello, thank you for an interesting proposal. I really like the idea. Please make sure to go back to the original literature (e.g. Weick, see our whitepaper), and also follow the "Method" structure we propose. Also please make sure that you do not end up writing about "organizational resilience" in general, but making projects more resilient. | Josef: Hello, thank you for an interesting proposal. I really like the idea. Please make sure to go back to the original literature (e.g. Weick, see our whitepaper), and also follow the "Method" structure we propose. Also please make sure that you do not end up writing about "organizational resilience" in general, but making projects more resilient. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Review 1, s150621 | ||
| + | |||
| + | • Interesting topic | ||
| + | |||
| + | • Nice that you give a description of the content of the article in the abstract | ||
| + | |||
| + | • The table with the 5 principles is clear and straight forward, good with examples for each principle | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | • The abstract should be before the contents | ||
| + | |||
| + | • Some of the sentences could be written easier, or described better, as for example this sentence: “Thorough management is crucial in resilient organisations (check ref, Geraldi et al, 2009) and mindfulness encompass the risk of the human mind.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | • In the article you refer to many books, which is very good. The reference should consistently be done in wiki style, with footnotes. One example is the sentence; “Weick and Sutcliffe(2001) describe mindfulness as “a rich awareness of discrimatory detail”.”, where you don´t use the footnote reference style | ||
| + | |||
| + | • It is nice that the article includes figures, but remember text for describing the figures, and to add the source of the figure | ||
| + | |||
| + | • The application paragraph ends with a question, which I suggest rather to put into the discussion. Some alternatives for the answer of the question would also be nice to add to the discussion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | • Can see that you are not finished yet, but so far it looks interesting, and I look forward to read the rest when you are finished | ||
Revision as of 18:50, 22 September 2015
Josef: Hello, thank you for an interesting proposal. I really like the idea. Please make sure to go back to the original literature (e.g. Weick, see our whitepaper), and also follow the "Method" structure we propose. Also please make sure that you do not end up writing about "organizational resilience" in general, but making projects more resilient.
Review 1, s150621
• Interesting topic
• Nice that you give a description of the content of the article in the abstract
• The table with the 5 principles is clear and straight forward, good with examples for each principle
• The abstract should be before the contents
• Some of the sentences could be written easier, or described better, as for example this sentence: “Thorough management is crucial in resilient organisations (check ref, Geraldi et al, 2009) and mindfulness encompass the risk of the human mind.”
• In the article you refer to many books, which is very good. The reference should consistently be done in wiki style, with footnotes. One example is the sentence; “Weick and Sutcliffe(2001) describe mindfulness as “a rich awareness of discrimatory detail”.”, where you don´t use the footnote reference style
• It is nice that the article includes figures, but remember text for describing the figures, and to add the source of the figure
• The application paragraph ends with a question, which I suggest rather to put into the discussion. Some alternatives for the answer of the question would also be nice to add to the discussion.
• Can see that you are not finished yet, but so far it looks interesting, and I look forward to read the rest when you are finished
