Talk:Data Quality Management
(Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sarah Romane Bourdiaux Terp''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or co...") |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very nice abstract with a good and logical flow. It clearly states the key focus and motivation behind the article. I have no suggestions for improvement of the abstract quality and content albeit there are minor grammatical confusions. (This might just be me, but I will discuss them in the grammatical section) '' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is very structured making it very nice and easy for the reader. There is a logical flow throughout the article, which ensures that the reader is never confused or surprised by what is written in each section. It is also very nice with all the sections - it provides a clear overview to the reader. I have no suggestions for improvement, other than keep up the good work structuring the rest of the article!'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The English is of exceptional high quality. It is clear and easily readable without grammatical negligences or confusing vocabulary. The only suggestions for improvement I have are in the Abstract: |
| + | - "DQM is is the management of people,..." - here there is "is" twice. | ||
| + | - "As such, data is becomingly increasingly valuable ..." - here I am not sure whether you can write "becomingly increasingly"? | ||
| + | "Data quality has a significant impact on both the efficiency and effectiveness on organisations..." - here I would maybe write "of organisations?'' | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 48: | Line 51: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very nice use of tables and figures. They are of high quality providing the reader with a good and visual overview, summarizing the key points of the article. I also like that you keep the same color theme throughout the figures - it gives a nice feeling of structure and consistency. '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 63: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is both of high practical and academic relevance. The topic is extremely relevant right now and all the arguments and statements are well justified for by relevant references and standards. I actually have no suggestions for improvement as the article is of very high quality and relevance from a practical and academical perspective.'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 72: | Line 75: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It is equally interesting for a practitioner an academic to read, as the article provides hands-on recommendations with well-funded argumentation from relevant references. It most certainly makes a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search. The article contains all relevant aspects of Data Quality Management on a very detailed level without being filled with unnecessary fill-words. I really look forward to read the final version.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 86: | Line 89: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''References are used appropriately throughout the article and there is absolutely nothing to improve - it is really an article of high academical quality. |
| + | The annotated bibliography provides interesting insight into the references and the reason for using them in the article.'' | ||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''== | ||
Revision as of 21:59, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sarah Romane Bourdiaux Terp
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
Very nice abstract with a good and logical flow. It clearly states the key focus and motivation behind the article. I have no suggestions for improvement of the abstract quality and content albeit there are minor grammatical confusions. (This might just be me, but I will discuss them in the grammatical section)
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 very structured making it very nice and easy for the reader. There is a logical flow throughout the article, which ensures that the reader is never confused or surprised by what is written in each section. It is also very nice with all the sections - it provides a clear overview to the reader. I have no suggestions for improvement, other than keep up the good work structuring the rest of 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
The English is of exceptional high quality. It is clear and easily readable without grammatical negligences or confusing vocabulary. The only suggestions for improvement I have are in the Abstract: - "DQM is is the management of people,..." - here there is "is" twice. - "As such, data is becomingly increasingly valuable ..." - here I am not sure whether you can write "becomingly increasingly"? "Data quality has a significant impact on both the efficiency and effectiveness on organisations..." - here I would maybe write "of organisations?
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
Very nice use of tables and figures. They are of high quality providing the reader with a good and visual overview, summarizing the key points of the article. I also like that you keep the same color theme throughout the figures - it gives a nice feeling of structure and consistency.
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 both of high practical and academic relevance. The topic is extremely relevant right now and all the arguments and statements are well justified for by relevant references and standards. I actually have no suggestions for improvement as the article is of very high quality and relevance from a practical and academical perspective.
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 is equally interesting for a practitioner an academic to read, as the article provides hands-on recommendations with well-funded argumentation from relevant references. It most certainly makes a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search. The article contains all relevant aspects of Data Quality Management on a very detailed level without being filled with unnecessary fill-words. I really look forward to read the final version.
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
References are used appropriately throughout the article and there is absolutely nothing to improve - it is really an article of high academical quality. The annotated bibliography provides interesting insight into the references and the reason for using them in the article.
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
