Talk:Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is very coherent. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Very good. |- |'''Article purpose ...") |
|||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
|'''References'''|| Add some references in your abstract, if needed. | |'''References'''|| Add some references in your abstract, if needed. | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''André Condamine''== | ||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | Yes! The Abstract gives a short introduction of the IPD system and further elaborate on the content of this article. | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | Yes! The Abstract gives a nice short introduction of the IPD system and further elaborates on the content of this 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=== | ||
| + | The article has a nice structure of first describing the definition before pealing through the subject in a logical order. One improvement though would definitely be to convert table 1 into an actual table. This would make the information seem more integrated with 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=== | ||
| + | There are some smaller grammar errors, but nothing obstructive. Otherwise, the language is clear and concise. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''As noted above table 1 could be improved. Moreover, it can seem a bit confusing as it very clustered with a lot of information. Otherwise, figure 1 is very clear and understandable. Table 2 could also be made into an actual table, but I would not deem it necessary as the layout fits the article'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 very informative on the system and the aspects of it. However, it would greatly benefit from approaching the system from a hands-on perspective. This could be done by describing how a project manager can use the tool. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The article may be quite interesting from an academic point of view. However as noted above, it might be hard to use for a 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=== | ||
| + | It seems like the author is aware of how to reference properly. As this is a work in progress the state of referencing is appropriate at the moment. However, further referencing is needed before finishing the article. | ||
Latest revision as of 21:01, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity & language | The text is very coherent. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Very good. |
| Article purpose explanation | Missing. Keep up the good work and make sure to include an explanation of the article purpose. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Add some references in your abstract, if needed. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: André Condamine
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes! The Abstract gives a short introduction of the IPD system and further elaborate on the content of this article. What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
Yes! The Abstract gives a nice short introduction of the IPD system and further elaborates on the content of this article.
[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 article has a nice structure of first describing the definition before pealing through the subject in a logical order. One improvement though would definitely be to convert table 1 into an actual table. This would make the information seem more integrated with the article.
[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 smaller grammar errors, but nothing obstructive. Otherwise, the language is clear and concise.
[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
As noted above table 1 could be improved. Moreover, it can seem a bit confusing as it very clustered with a lot of information. Otherwise, figure 1 is very clear and understandable. Table 2 could also be made into an actual table, but I would not deem it necessary as the layout fits the article
[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 very informative on the system and the aspects of it. However, it would greatly benefit from approaching the system from a hands-on perspective. This could be done by describing how a project manager can use the tool.
[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
The article may be quite interesting from an academic point of view. However as noted above, it might be hard to use for a practitioner.
[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
It seems like the author is aware of how to reference properly. As this is a work in progress the state of referencing is appropriate at the moment. However, further referencing is needed before finishing the article.
