Talk:Potentials of Key Performance Indicators

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Feedback on Abstract:)
Line 13: Line 13:
 
|}
 
|}
  
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sarantis Pavlidis''==
+
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Giorgia Scartozzi''==
 
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 
'''Quality of the summary:'''

Revision as of 18:49, 23 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Article purpose explanation This needs to be elaborated
Relevance to curriculum Relevant. Make sure you clearly relate it with project, program and portfolio management.
References Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Giorgia Scartozzi

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox