Talk:Negotiation techniques

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here)
(Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kasper Løwe Olsen)
Line 33: Line 33:
  
 
===Answer 1===
 
===Answer 1===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Short, clear and interesting, makes me want to read the article.
  
 
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 
===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 49: Line 50:
  
 
===Answer 2===
 
===Answer 2===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Already in the abstract you mention the term "BATNA" which I was wondering about all the way down to where it was explained.
 +
Other than that, the structure is fine :)
  
 
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 
===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 61: Line 64:
  
 
===Answer 3===
 
===Answer 3===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Great English skills. However, some of the sentences are very long. E.g.: "Every negotiator want to get as much of the goods being discussed as they can but a successful project manager is aware of the fact that there is a broader spectrum of things that matter such as the stability and durability of the agreement and the ability to repeat a similar deal with the stakeholder at a later point in time".
  
 
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 
===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 73: Line 77:
  
 
===Answer 4===
 
===Answer 4===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
No tables or figures included. I don't think they would make much sense anyway.
  
 
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 
===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 85: Line 90:
  
 
===Answer 5===
 
===Answer 5===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
The article is useful in a personal sense and gives thoughts to how one negotiates himself. So great and useful.
  
 
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 
===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 97: Line 103:
  
 
===Answer 6===
 
===Answer 6===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
Interesting for everyone, as everyone negotiate every now and then, both at work or at home.
  
 
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 
===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 111: Line 118:
  
 
===Answer 7===
 
===Answer 7===
''Answer here''
+
 
 +
You state multiple times that "research suggests that....", but you don't name or link the research. I guess you just did not include it yet, as I can see you have references but haven't included them in the text yet :).
  
 
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
 
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==

Revision as of 21:14, 19 February 2018

Contents

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Good

Language Good with minor spelling mistakes: e.g. write "her" instead of "hers" and write "role" instead of "rolle"

Description of the tool/theory/concept Well explained

Purpose explanation Well addressed, but consider to briefly outline the structure of the article to set the reader's expectations (see "Article in general" for info on article structure)

References Missing references to list of mandatory references/standards

Relevance of article Relevant

Article in general Good topic, but consider the structure of your article. The following structure is recommended

  1. Summary/abstract
  2. Big idea/theory
  3. Application
  4. Limitations
  5. Annotated bibliography


Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kasper Løwe Olsen

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

Short, clear and interesting, makes me want to read the article.

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

Already in the abstract you mention the term "BATNA" which I was wondering about all the way down to where it was explained. Other than that, the structure is fine :)

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

Great English skills. However, some of the sentences are very long. E.g.: "Every negotiator want to get as much of the goods being discussed as they can but a successful project manager is aware of the fact that there is a broader spectrum of things that matter such as the stability and durability of the agreement and the ability to repeat a similar deal with the stakeholder at a later point in time".

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

No tables or figures included. I don't think they would make much sense anyway.

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 useful in a personal sense and gives thoughts to how one negotiates himself. So great and useful.

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

Interesting for everyone, as everyone negotiate every now and then, both at work or at home.

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

You state multiple times that "research suggests that....", but you don't name or link the research. I guess you just did not include it yet, as I can see you have references but haven't included them in the text yet :).

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox