Talk:The implementation of KPIs
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum) |
||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The logical flow works well for the reader. Because the article is quite short (approx. 2000 words) i would suggest using a bit more energy on describe what KPIs are and why they are important to ppp-management. More energy could also be used on the discussion part where additional views and approaches could be discussed see answer to question 7. '' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''In general ok. It could use a read through by the author. There are examples of some sentences that do not make sense and sometimes the meaning is lost/a bit unclear. '' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Missing reference of figure 1 and 2 who made it?. In general if you use a figure in an article you must refer to it in the text and use it. The figures are good but they should be more included in the text. '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 90: | Line 90: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | ' | + | 'See answer to question 7 - additional litteratur references research articles would make it more interesting '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional litteratur or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant. '' |
Revision as of 14:10, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | It needs to be described |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Needs to be elaborated |
| Relevance to curriculum | Good |
| References | Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum
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 first part of the abstract is good. It describes the topic briefly and how it is being presented in the article and how the topic relates to PPP-management. I would suggest to move the part of the abstract with the bullet points ("A KPI can be dissected as the following:......") to another section. In this part you are being more specific about what KPIs are and the abstract should only be a brief summary of what to expect reading 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
The logical flow works well for the reader. Because the article is quite short (approx. 2000 words) i would suggest using a bit more energy on describe what KPIs are and why they are important to ppp-management. More energy could also be used on the discussion part where additional views and approaches could be discussed see answer to question 7.
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
In general ok. It could use a read through by the author. There are examples of some sentences that do not make sense and sometimes the meaning is lost/a bit unclear.
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
Missing reference of figure 1 and 2 who made it?. In general if you use a figure in an article you must refer to it in the text and use it. The figures are good but they should be more included in the text.
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
'See answer to question 7 - additional litteratur references research articles would make it more interesting
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
In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional litteratur or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant.
