Talk:The Periodic Table of Project Management
CasperGandil (Talk | contribs) |
Brynja Ben. (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''Its not done yet, so can't tell'' | ''Its not done yet, so can't tell'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Response to peer review== | ||
Revision as of 12:26, 3 March 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is coherent, however there's a few grammatical errors. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good. There's a large emphasis on the periodic table used in chemistry. I understand this is used in combination with the periodic table of project management, however keep it to a minimum as possible. It's also difficult to understand what "field" is menat in "...three different ways that are used to divide the field up..." - this could be better explained. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good references. Reach out if you have any technical issues with the referencing. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Casper Gandil Qvortrup
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
Yes it is very good. If any improvement suggestion, then i would recommend to shorten the part talking about the chemical periodic table. But not a necessity, since its the base for the rest.
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
Yes the structure is good and the linkage between the PMI knowledge areas with the PRINCE2 themes is well done. I think the argumentation in chapter 3 could be better, in general that chapter is vague compared to the rest of the article.
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
Some minor errors, also i have some suggestions on rephrasings, which I will present tomorrow face2face.
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
I think the figures can be very good. The current quality is very poor. The caption to each could very shortly tell which model is which so the reader dont have to investigate that in the references. Would make the flow better. Also i think the Figure 1 need some more in-depth explenation, its one of the main parts of the article and from the article itself i was not able to understand the logical.
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
Its relevance is well explained. But i highly suggest to have a more in-depth analyze of the 2 periodic tables identifying their common and the juxtaposition, because they are very different.
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
With a final comparison between the two models and maybe even a proposed improved model or recommendations if applied, then i think it will be a very good article with a very interesting view on project management.
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
Its not done yet, so can't tell
