Talk:Vico Office as a project management tool

Revision as of 22:38, 19 February 2018

Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check comments below

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards

Initially the abstract is not out of scope, if your article describes how procurement could be undertaken in a digital environment compared with traditional ways of procurement described in the standards.

However if you develop a VICO user guidelines, then the article will be out of scope.

The abstract lists, Model register-LBS Manager-Take-off Manager-Cost Planner-Schedule Planner-4D Simulation, that are different modules of the VICO workflows that will be out of scope.

Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ína Salome Sturludóttir'

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 abstract gives a general understanding of the topic and what focus point the reader can expect.

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

Since the abstract has just been uploaded I can not give a peer feedback on the structure and the logical flow in the article.

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

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: David Baldursson

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

Sums up the description of what is to come.

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

As only the abstract has been uploaded it is not possible to review the structure and logic.

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

Same as answer 2.

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 figures or tables

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

Article topic is practical. It is made clear why it is relevant since it is a tool used in the construction industry.

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

It can be interesting for practitioner.

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

Key references are in place. But I can’t give a whole feedback at this time in the article.