Talk:Dealing with conflict in project management

Latest revision as of 23:44, 18 February 2018

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Good

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Relatively easy to grasp, but work still needs to be done to explain conflict in the context of project management to ensure reader understanding

Purpose explanation Abstract is too short and can be improved:

1. Who is the reader? Project manager or any project team member?
2. What will the reader learn/get out of reading the article?
3. Briefly describe the structure of the article in the abstract to set reader expectations once there is a clearer picture of the article content

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article It is relevant. Consider the following:

1. Try to link it to a knowledge area of project management (if that is the direction) e.g. Project Human Resource Management
2. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Piotr

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary: Good

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Yes, nothing.

[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

Yes, Yes the flow is very good- there are good transitions from one step to another. Yes and nothinh.

[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

I haven't spot any errors and I believe that it's pretty precise. I believe there is nothing to improve

[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

Yes, Yes, the figures give a very good contributions to the article and help to better understand the content- like in case of Conflict Stages. Big plus for that. Nothing to improve

[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

I believe it is relevant, especially for us students . Yes it is made clear why it is relevant in the state-of-the-art section 'Why focus on conflicts?'. Nothing

[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

Yes, yes, nothing.

[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 think there are small issues with the citing: It should be formatted according to the one of the standards I believe there is a more proper way of putting few abbreviations to the same source. Please look into the book from Soren Jensen that we used while we wrote the thesis.

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Kornpong Mahitthiburin

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary: good

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Yes, it is very clear but abstract is a bit too short

[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

yes, yes, yes, and yes

[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

I have not seen any grammatical errors, so I believe that everything is precise

[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

Yes it is very big, clear and related to the topic

[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

I believe that it can be used in a practical way in managing project, It would be better to present a related case study

[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

Good for practitioner, yes, nothing

[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

yes, everything seems perfect for me