Talk:Epistemic vs. Aleatory uncertainty
(→Feedback on Abstract:) |
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Oliwia Sonia Lubiraz) |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
|'''Other'''|| Are you focusing on project management or project, program and portfolio management? You could narrow your topic to one of them. | |'''Other'''|| Are you focusing on project management or project, program and portfolio management? You could narrow your topic to one of them. | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Osman Furkan Simsek''== | ||
| + | ===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 precise and clear. It successfully focuses on the key points.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 1=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 argument is clear and there is a logical flow. The article is consistent and free of contradictions.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 2=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''There are some article mistakes (the, a, an) in the article. It should be revised. Language is precise and clear.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 3=== | ||
| + | ''The text has been revised and checked by using a commercial grammar software.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 and table are clear and meaningful.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 4=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article is academic and directly relative to P/P/P management. In the article, it is clearly shown this relevance. In my view, "Uncertainty in Management" part can be developed with more examples from real cases.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 5=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment. Section "Uncertainty in Management" has been revised and examples were added for every case of P/P/P management.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article is interesting for both practitioners and academics to read. It is a well-researched and organized paper. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | ''The article is interesting for both practitioners and academics to read. It is a well-researched and organized paper.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 6=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article properly cited and acknowledged previous work. It briefly summarizes the key references. It is based on both empirical data and opinion. P/P/P Management books can be added to the annotated bibliography.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 7=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment. P/P/P Management books have been added to the annotated bibliography as well as relative wiki articles.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Oliwia Sonia Lubiraz''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Clear and well-explained what is included in the article. Nothing to be improved in that part.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 1=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Clear argument and logical flow are presented. One-part builds another, interesting examples explain each new definition giving a good explanation for the reader.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 2=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''I have noticed some grammatical and spelling errors. Language is precise without unnecessary fill words. I would recommend using Grammarly, it makes a good job for us. : )'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 3=== | ||
| + | ''The text has been revised and checked by using a commercial grammar software.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Properly used figures, a good linkage between the text and the picture. For figure 1, maybe you should correct “Epistemic Uncertainty” to “Epistemic uncertainty”, everywhere you use the small letter and only there you used the capital one. (I know it is so stupid to mention it, but everything else seems to be perfect and looked like you spend a lot of time on that). One table is added, nothing to be improved. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 4=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment. All figures were revised to match each other.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article is of high practical and academic relevance. The relevance of the article is clearly explained. You explained all the aspects in an interesting way. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 5=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Very interesting with good examples to explain the definitions. The companies examples instead of the random ones would make the article even more interesting.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 6=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment. The case of Ellsberg's paradox, that was discussed, was reduced to just a reference and all examples are based on P/P/P 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=== | ||
| + | ''The article properly cites and acknowledges previous work. The key references are briefly summarized. The data is based on both empirical and opinions. Nothing to be improved in that part. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Response 7=== | ||
| + | ''Thank you for the comment.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 13:10, 3 March 2019
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good |
| Other | Are you focusing on project management or project, program and portfolio management? You could narrow your topic to one of them. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Osman Furkan Simsek
[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 precise and clear. It successfully focuses on the key points.
[edit] Response 1
Thank you for the comment.
[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 is clear and there is a logical flow. The article is consistent and free of contradictions.
[edit] Response 2
Thank you for the comment.
[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
There are some article mistakes (the, a, an) in the article. It should be revised. Language is precise and clear.
[edit] Response 3
The text has been revised and checked by using a commercial grammar software.
[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 and table are clear and meaningful.
[edit] Response 4
Thank you for the comment.
[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 academic and directly relative to P/P/P management. In the article, it is clearly shown this relevance. In my view, "Uncertainty in Management" part can be developed with more examples from real cases.
[edit] Response 5
Thank you for the comment. Section "Uncertainty in Management" has been revised and examples were added for every case of P/P/P management.
[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?
The article is interesting for both practitioners and academics to read. It is a well-researched and organized paper.
[edit] Answer 6
The article is interesting for both practitioners and academics to read. It is a well-researched and organized paper.
[edit] Response 6
Thank you for the comment.
[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 properly cited and acknowledged previous work. It briefly summarizes the key references. It is based on both empirical data and opinion. P/P/P Management books can be added to the annotated bibliography.
[edit] Response 7
Thank you for the comment. P/P/P Management books have been added to the annotated bibliography as well as relative wiki articles.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Oliwia Sonia Lubiraz
[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
Clear and well-explained what is included in the article. Nothing to be improved in that part.
[edit] Response 1
Thank you for the comment.
[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
Clear argument and logical flow are presented. One-part builds another, interesting examples explain each new definition giving a good explanation for the reader.
[edit] Response 2
Thank you for the comment.
[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 noticed some grammatical and spelling errors. Language is precise without unnecessary fill words. I would recommend using Grammarly, it makes a good job for us. : )
[edit] Response 3
The text has been revised and checked by using a commercial grammar software.
[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
Properly used figures, a good linkage between the text and the picture. For figure 1, maybe you should correct “Epistemic Uncertainty” to “Epistemic uncertainty”, everywhere you use the small letter and only there you used the capital one. (I know it is so stupid to mention it, but everything else seems to be perfect and looked like you spend a lot of time on that). One table is added, nothing to be improved.
[edit] Response 4
Thank you for the comment. All figures were revised to match each other.
[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 of high practical and academic relevance. The relevance of the article is clearly explained. You explained all the aspects in an interesting way.
[edit] Response 5
Thank you for the comment.
[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
Very interesting with good examples to explain the definitions. The companies examples instead of the random ones would make the article even more interesting.
[edit] Response 6
Thank you for the comment. The case of Ellsberg's paradox, that was discussed, was reduced to just a reference and all examples are based on P/P/P Management.
[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 properly cites and acknowledges previous work. The key references are briefly summarized. The data is based on both empirical and opinions. Nothing to be improved in that part.
[edit] Response 7
Thank you for the comment.
