Talk:Management with DISC profile analysis
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Ana Torrijos Mediavilla''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contri...") |
|||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
''I’m not sure if it’s possible, but it would be interesting to see what the questionnaire looks like (what kind of questions, how long, what conclusions you can extract from it, etc.). Include a link to it? | ''I’m not sure if it’s possible, but it would be interesting to see what the questionnaire looks like (what kind of questions, how long, what conclusions you can extract from it, etc.). Include a link to it? | ||
'' | '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Anne''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''It has a very clear focus - I like that you have included some history of the tool as well. Good language.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 is well-structured, which gives the article a nice reading flow.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Your written language is good, but there is some minor errors here and there. Some of your sentences are too long - for example the first sentence in the 'Background' section - A dot (full stop) after 'water' would help. | ||
| + | If you do a thorough readthrough you can find the small grammatical errors. All in all, you have a nice written language - it is easy to understand. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Maybe you should spell out what DISC is short for?? '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 included. I don't know if there is some sort of overview chart of the categories? Could be nice if there was included something visual to support your 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=== | ||
| + | ''Highly relevant - it is made clear throughout the entire article who it's addressed to.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Well explained and it has a great depth. I would suggest maybe, if possible, to include the questionnaire - it would be easier to imagine, what it looks like. Also as mentioned in question 4, it could be nice to have some visual included.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''As far as I can see, you only have one reference? And you reference to it in the beginning... Remember to put references on everything and not only the abstract. You need to remember the 'Mandatory' references as well ;-) '' | ||
Latest revision as of 21:43, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ana Torrijos Mediavilla
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
Your summary provides a good overview of the tool you will describe in the article. It is clear who you are targeting (managers and team leaders). You could also include a brief (1-2 sentences) description of the benefits this method can bring to organizations and why it is interesting for managers to implement it (and thus why it is interesting for them to read 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 flow of the article makes perfect sense: start off by introducing the topic and its background and then going more in depth when you explain the 4 main aspects."
"Including a discussion or conclusion would be a nice way to summarize/close up 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
A few small grammar errors I noticed:
The very first sentence of the article, at the end it says “the well-being of the individual”. Shouldn’t it be “the well-being of the individuals”?
On the last sentence of your introduction: “and in applicable whether it is project”. Write “is” instead of “in”?
In your introduction you explain what DISC stands for: “The letters DISC stems from the words dominance, influence, steadiness, and compliance.” However, later it seems like the C stands for Competence. Double check this?
In the Method of use paragraph: “person every day actions is affected”, rather “person’s every day actions are affected”.
In Behavior of low D’s: cooperative, seeks consensus
[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
Not sure if it’s relevant but maybe include some kind of table or chart that visually shows the different characteristics of each of the 4 categories?
[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
I definitely see the relevance of this topic, especially for managers and leaders (as you mentioned). Maybe you could include a section that discusses the relevance of this topic, whether it’s used often or not, etc. (or do it directly in the conclusion or discussion).
[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
Yes, it explains the method very clearly. Include table/graphs if you can to make it more visual.
[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
I’m not sure if it’s possible, but it would be interesting to see what the questionnaire looks like (what kind of questions, how long, what conclusions you can extract from it, etc.). Include a link to it?
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Anne
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
It has a very clear focus - I like that you have included some history of the tool as well. Good language.
[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 is well-structured, which gives the article a nice reading flow.
[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
Your written language is good, but there is some minor errors here and there. Some of your sentences are too long - for example the first sentence in the 'Background' section - A dot (full stop) after 'water' would help. If you do a thorough readthrough you can find the small grammatical errors. All in all, you have a nice written language - it is easy to understand.
Maybe you should spell out what DISC is short for??
[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
No figures or tables included. I don't know if there is some sort of overview chart of the categories? Could be nice if there was included something visual to support your text.
[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
Highly relevant - it is made clear throughout the entire article who it's addressed to.
[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
Well explained and it has a great depth. I would suggest maybe, if possible, to include the questionnaire - it would be easier to imagine, what it looks like. Also as mentioned in question 4, it could be nice to have some visual included.
[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
As far as I can see, you only have one reference? And you reference to it in the beginning... Remember to put references on everything and not only the abstract. You need to remember the 'Mandatory' references as well ;-)
