Talk:Managing start-ups in Unregulated Markets

Latest revision as of 09:33, 20 February 2018

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Good

Language Minor errors e.g. writing "is fits" when "fits" is required

Description of the tool/theory/concept Difficult to follow - what concept/theory/tool is exactly being described here? Project management is too generic

Purpose explanation Notes: Avoid using a case study (cryptocurrency) - the course requirements changed - do not use a case study

1. Avoid using a case study (concurrency) - the course requirements changed - do not use a case study
2. Avoid creating a new concept to project management without consulting/agreeing with Josef
3. Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Consider the following:

1. Try linking to a knowledge area e.g. "Project Human Resource Management"
2. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Iga

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes, it gives a good background and introduction to the topic.

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Yes, it gives a good background and introduction to the topic. However it does not clearly state what the article will focus on. Maybe the methods described later on, e.g. SWOT analysis should be mentioned in the introduction. The theme is clearly introduce however it is not clear on which aspect of it the article is going to focus on.

[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

The topic is clear, although it may be a little more precise. The flow between the topics is fluent. In my opinion, the article lacks clear structure. After reading an introduction I am not sure what to expect. To make it a little more scientific maybe introduction of some examples, e.g. what are those risk factors for new start-ups, how can they be categorised, etc. would make it more clear.

[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

In general it is very good. Try being a little bit more specific. Some small mistakes (e.g. using 'what' instead of 'which').

[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

No figures yet.

[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

The article is very practical and it describes very up-to-date problem, which many young engineers face. The relevance of the article is obvious.

[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

It is very interesting and difficult topic since there are no clear answers and patterns. Maybe try being more specific to make it look more scientific.

[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

It is ok.