Talk:Virtual Team Management

Latest revision as of 23:46, 19 February 2018

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Text is coherent

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but the context around virtual team management needs to be narrowed down - see "relevance of article"

Purpose explanation Ok (e.g. clear that the Project Manager is the reader), but the article needs to be narrowed down to one or two knowledge areas of project management - see "relevance of article"

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Consider the following:

1. Narrow down the article scope - e.g. to Project Communications Management (see chapter 10 in PMBOK) or Project Human Resource Management (see chapter 9 in PMBOK) to emphasize relevance to project management
2. Briefly describe the structure of the article in the abstract

I CAN NOT EVALUATE THIS ARTICLE BECAUSE THE GUY DROPPED THE COURSE

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth

[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/abstract is good. I understand the topic, and what the article is going to be about. The list with the different key point makes it clear.

[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 argument of the article is clearly stated, and the logical flow in the article is so far good. The build-up in the abstract makes it seem that the further flow and progress is going to be good aswell. I have nothing to say regarding improvements on this point

[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

The writing, as I see it, is good. I can clearly understand everything, and sentence structure are in my opinion good.

[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

There are no figures/tables in the text right now, but maybe a table with the existing communication and which countries and company’s using the different stuff would be nice.

[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 relevant, because it clearly is a problem. The article both states the problem and how the wiki article can look at how the problem can be solved, which I think is good.

[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

I think the article mostly is relevant for the practitioner. A google search on the topic gives some sites online, but not as a management explanation, so I think it will contribute in a web search.

[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 doesn’t mention any previous work, and there is only one reference in the article so far. It is hard to say what all the data is going to be based on. I think it is good to bring in some of both, and that is also my suggestion, as long as the authors see the whole picture.