Talk:Roadmapping
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | General there is a nice structure and flow in the article where the different parts is going to build upon each other when its alle done :) - there is no contradictions no - i would maybe suggest to do a more thorough explanation of how to do the roadmap so you understand the technicalities you talk about in the limitation section | |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | You have a very nice language - some writing mistakes in the limitations section just check it out (y) | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 21:13, 18 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the points you want to examine in the article when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Program Manager.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen
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
Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?
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
General there is a nice structure and flow in the article where the different parts is going to build upon each other when its alle done :) - there is no contradictions no - i would maybe suggest to do a more thorough explanation of how to do the roadmap so you understand the technicalities you talk about in the limitation section
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
You have a very nice language - some writing mistakes in the limitations section just check it out (y)
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
