Talk:Beyond the Triple Constraint
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here == ===Question 1=== ====Quality of the summary:==== Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of th...") |
Kasperloewe (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kasper Løwe Olsen == |
===Question 1=== | ===Question 1=== | ||
====Quality of the summary:==== | ====Quality of the summary:==== | ||
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The abstract is clear and gives a good overview of what's to come. | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Nothing. | ||
Answer 1 | Answer 1 | ||
| Line 14: | Line 18: | ||
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes. | ||
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yes. | ||
Does one part build upon the other? | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Under application you talk about cost and time being closely correlated, but leaving scope out? Are time and scope not closely correlated? Cost and scope? | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The limitation section is very large and it would be nice to have it divided into more subsections. | ||
Answer 2 | Answer 2 | ||
Revision as of 20:33, 19 February 2018
Contents
|
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kasper Løwe Olsen
Question 1
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
The abstract is clear and gives a good overview of what's to come.
What would you suggest to improve?
Nothing.
Answer 1
Question 2
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Yes.
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Yes.
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
Under application you talk about cost and time being closely correlated, but leaving scope out? Are time and scope not closely correlated? Cost and scope?
What would you suggest to improve?
The limitation section is very large and it would be nice to have it divided into more subsections.
Answer 2
Question 3
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
Question 4
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
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
Question 6
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
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
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
Question 1
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
Question 2
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
Question 3
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
Question 4
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
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
Question 6
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
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
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good. Minor error e.g. writing "constraint" when "constrain" is meant
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but paragraph 2 is difficult to follow: Does "other constraints" refer to constraints within the quality constraint?
Purpose explanation Good, but a lot of constraints have been introduced in the abstract (see comment above) - will the article focus on a particular few or all of them?
References Good, but add the mandatory references in the "Reference material"
Relevance of article Definitely relevant, but look at the comments above for improvement
