Talk:Leadership vs. management
(→Answer 7) |
|||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''It is stated that we need to use atleast 3 references in the | + | ''It is stated that we need to use atleast 3 references in the annotated bibliography, so far I can only see one'' |
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Helene Gravdal''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Helene Gravdal''== | ||
Revision as of 19:04, 24 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | Good. The text is coherent |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | The distinction between leadership and management is well described but no tool/theory/concept is described at the moment |
| Article purpose explanation | Needs to elaborated |
| Relevance to curriculum | At the moment the subject is not related to project, program or portfolio management and make sure you clearly define the scope of the article |
| References | Some references missing. Check the guidelines for references from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Heðin Gunnarsstein Poulsen
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
More feedback will be provided later on.The summary is really good with an introduction to different perspectives. I still miss the part where you say that you are going for example to discuss about managent vs leadership in project, program or portfolio management. Could maybe be too broad if you begin discussing about all of the three. They certainly have different perspectives on this topic. But I guess you have chosen Project management as you begin writing about it further down. But I would suggest to mention it in the summary as well
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
I think overall it looks good. I think you are telling a lot of theory which is good, but I just think that you should mention some tools and how these can improve or define leadership styles etc. And also it would help to have some figures to support the understanding sometimes. The last comment is maybe kinda Also for a prettier layout
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
The language is really good. I should learn something from it as I have a lot of misspellings :)
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
There are no figures or tables so far, so I can't evaluate them.
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
Definitely something of high practical and academic relevance. Again I would suggest using/showing some tools. But I guess the article is not finished yet and this will come?
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
I think this article is interesting and is easy to read, but without a finished article it is kinda hard to say where you are going with this. But so far it is very good. '
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
It is stated that we need to use atleast 3 references in the annotated bibliography, so far I can only see one
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Helene Gravdal
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
