Talk:Communication Management Strategy
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the ...") |
(→Answer 2) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager. | In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ||
| + | ===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 comprehensive and well written. It actually be too comprehensive, therefore, some of the explanation of the method could be moved into the next section. You should also mention the limitations that are you going to discuss.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''As all section has not been written, I cannot comment on the overall consistency of the article. However, the planned structure seems to make sense, and the abtract is'' | ||
| + | well-written with good argumentation" | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Excelling language in the abstract. Next section seems to still be a draft, and therefore needs some improvement'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Figure looks good. Remember to reference where you have gotten it from'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Good argument for why the topic is relevant. You could be more clear in your link to the reference material. It seems like you are starting to do it in the "big idea"-section.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Has potential to be significant and interesting, but difficult to make a final assessment at this point'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Good that you are referencing both the reference material and external articles. Obviously still needs more references and a comprehensive "annotated bibliography"-section'' | ||
Latest revision as of 21:22, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
The abstract is very comprehensive and well written. It actually be too comprehensive, therefore, some of the explanation of the method could be moved into the next section. You should also mention the limitations that are you going to discuss.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
As all section has not been written, I cannot comment on the overall consistency of the article. However, the planned structure seems to make sense, and the abtract is well-written with good argumentation"
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Excelling language in the abstract. Next section seems to still be a draft, and therefore needs some improvement
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
Figure looks good. Remember to reference where you have gotten it from
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
Good argument for why the topic is relevant. You could be more clear in your link to the reference material. It seems like you are starting to do it in the "big idea"-section.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
Has potential to be significant and interesting, but difficult to make a final assessment at this point
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Good that you are referencing both the reference material and external articles. Obviously still needs more references and a comprehensive "annotated bibliography"-section
