Talk:Negotiation techniques
Kasperloewe (Talk | contribs) (→Abstract Feedback) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Kasper Løwe Olsen''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Short, clear and interesting, makes me want to read the article. | ||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 49: | Line 50: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Already in the abstract you mention the term "BATNA" which I was wondering about all the way down to where it was explained. | ||
| + | Other than that, the structure is fine :) | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 61: | Line 64: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Great English skills. However, some of the sentences are very long. E.g.: "Every negotiator want to get as much of the goods being discussed as they can but a successful project manager is aware of the fact that there is a broader spectrum of things that matter such as the stability and durability of the agreement and the ability to repeat a similar deal with the stakeholder at a later point in time". | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 73: | Line 77: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | ' | + | |
| + | No tables or figures included. I don't think they would make much sense anyway. | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 85: | Line 90: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | The article is useful in a personal sense and gives thoughts to how one negotiates himself. So great and useful. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 97: | Line 103: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | Interesting for everyone, as everyone negotiate every now and then, both at work or at home. | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 111: | Line 118: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | |||
| + | You state multiple times that "research suggests that....", but you don't name or link the research. I guess you just did not include it yet, as I can see you have references but haven't included them in the text yet :). | ||
| − | ==Feedback | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Marie Totland''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''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? | ||
| Line 123: | Line 129: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | All in all, it captures the essence of the article. | ||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 139: | Line 146: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | I assume this will also come more as you progress, it is a bit all over the place at the moment, but nothing critical | |
| + | |||
| + | Like Kasper said, explain BATNA | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| Line 151: | Line 160: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | ' | + | The language is overall good, but could need a bit more flow. In some cases the sentences are too long and a bit heavy to read, and could use with some connections and also wouldn't suffer from a bit shorter sentences. |
| − | + | The language is a bit informal, maybe try to use "you" a bit less. | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| Line 163: | Line 172: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | ' | + | Maybe see if you can find some figures to break up the text a bit, but not sure if it's necessary |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 176: | Line 185: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Absolutely relevant! Maybe it is possible to make a bullet point list or some sort of "how to" -guide? Don't know if it is difficult, but could make it even more useful. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 187: | Line 198: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | Definitely interesting! | |
| + | |||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 201: | Line 213: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ' | + | I'm guessing this comes later! |
Latest revision as of 19:33, 20 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Good
Language Good with minor spelling mistakes: e.g. write "her" instead of "hers" and write "role" instead of "rolle"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Well explained
Purpose explanation Well addressed, but consider to briefly outline the structure of the article to set the reader's expectations (see "Article in general" for info on article structure)
References Missing references to list of mandatory references/standards
Relevance of article Relevant
Article in general Good topic, but consider the structure of your article. The following structure is recommended
- Summary/abstract
- Big idea/theory
- Application
- Limitations
- Annotated bibliography
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kasper Løwe Olsen
[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
Short, clear and interesting, makes me want to read the article.
[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
Already in the abstract you mention the term "BATNA" which I was wondering about all the way down to where it was explained. Other than that, the structure is fine :)
[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
Great English skills. However, some of the sentences are very long. E.g.: "Every negotiator want to get as much of the goods being discussed as they can but a successful project manager is aware of the fact that there is a broader spectrum of things that matter such as the stability and durability of the agreement and the ability to repeat a similar deal with the stakeholder at a later point in time".
[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 tables or figures included. I don't think they would make much sense anyway.
[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 useful in a personal sense and gives thoughts to how one negotiates himself. So great and useful.
[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
Interesting for everyone, as everyone negotiate every now and then, both at work or at home.
[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
You state multiple times that "research suggests that....", but you don't name or link the research. I guess you just did not include it yet, as I can see you have references but haven't included them in the text yet :).
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Marie Totland
[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
All in all, it captures the essence of the article.
[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
I assume this will also come more as you progress, it is a bit all over the place at the moment, but nothing critical
Like Kasper said, explain BATNA
[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
The language is overall good, but could need a bit more flow. In some cases the sentences are too long and a bit heavy to read, and could use with some connections and also wouldn't suffer from a bit shorter sentences. The language is a bit informal, maybe try to use "you" a bit less.
[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
Maybe see if you can find some figures to break up the text a bit, but not sure if it's necessary
[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
Answer here
Absolutely relevant! Maybe it is possible to make a bullet point list or some sort of "how to" -guide? Don't know if it is difficult, but could make it even more useful.
[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
Definitely interesting!
[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
I'm guessing this comes later!
