Talk:Need-Based Theories of Motivation
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribut...") |
|||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Julianna Apli''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The abstract is a bit unclear and too wild. I would suggest to look into how is it connected to project/program/portfolio management, how can it be incorporated to project management processes and how can it be useful for a project manager. I would suggest to elaborate on the structure of the article a bit more so it would be easier to understand the article flow.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article parts do not really build upon each other. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and move the draft chapter under big idea. It nice to start with the background/history and maybe add some more explanation about the usage and the relevance of the theories under this chapter. The list of the theories could be moved under application, with adding how is it used and why is it relevant. It would be nice to additionally compare the theories to each other.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Grammar is okay apart from a few spelling mistakes.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The figures are not really illustrative, it would make more sense to either make your own tables or write down the content of the tables in the text. I would suggest to add figure text and references to every figure/table.'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is need to elaborate further on why and how is the theories relevant. I would suggest to find a case study and illustrate the theories with the help of it.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is very general, right now is more like a description of the theories. An improvement could be to make it more precise, connect it more to project management and explain step by step how they could be used by project managers for example.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 86: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | ''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. '' |
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The summary is not clear. The key points of the article are missing. Try to incorporate more arguments to why need theories are important for a project manager. Core references would also be good to incorporate to make the key points and arguments more reliable'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article is missing arguments throughout. It is providing methods without elaborating on when to use them and the relation to a project manager. Article is clearly not finished and the application part specifically needs more content.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Minor grammatical errors, but overall a precise language in the article'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Figures should be re-made by the author and their content needs to be elaborated to understand their importance toward the arguments.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The relevance needs to be more precisely elaborated. What does the different needs theories mean for a manager?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Not yet, more content is needed and more precise arguments. Examples from real life cases could be used to make the relevance more clear.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Article is missing references and annotated bibliography.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 22:34, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli
[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
The abstract is a bit unclear and too wild. I would suggest to look into how is it connected to project/program/portfolio management, how can it be incorporated to project management processes and how can it be useful for a project manager. I would suggest to elaborate on the structure of the article a bit more so it would be easier to understand the article flow.
[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 article parts do not really build upon each other. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and move the draft chapter under big idea. It nice to start with the background/history and maybe add some more explanation about the usage and the relevance of the theories under this chapter. The list of the theories could be moved under application, with adding how is it used and why is it relevant. It would be nice to additionally compare the theories to each other.
[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
Grammar is okay apart from a few spelling mistakes.
[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
The figures are not really illustrative, it would make more sense to either make your own tables or write down the content of the tables in the text. I would suggest to add figure text and references to every figure/table.
[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 need to elaborate further on why and how is the theories relevant. I would suggest to find a case study and illustrate the theories with the help of it.
[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
The article is very general, right now is more like a description of the theories. An improvement could be to make it more precise, connect it more to project management and explain step by step how they could be used by project managers for example.
[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
The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen
[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
The summary is not clear. The key points of the article are missing. Try to incorporate more arguments to why need theories are important for a project manager. Core references would also be good to incorporate to make the key points and arguments more reliable
[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 article is missing arguments throughout. It is providing methods without elaborating on when to use them and the relation to a project manager. Article is clearly not finished and the application part specifically needs more content.
[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
Minor grammatical errors, but overall a precise language in the article
[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
Figures should be re-made by the author and their content needs to be elaborated to understand their importance toward the arguments.
[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 relevance needs to be more precisely elaborated. What does the different needs theories mean for a manager?
[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
Not yet, more content is needed and more precise arguments. Examples from real life cases could be used to make the relevance more clear.
[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
Article is missing references and annotated bibliography.
