Talk:Negotiation Skills
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Take a look into the punctuation |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not enough described. Make sure you clea...") |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 1 | ||
| + | Quality of the summary: | ||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | * A: Yes. | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | * A: Nothing, except the layout. Make it a bit more rich with some line breaks. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 2 | ||
| + | Structure and logic of the article: | ||
| + | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | * A: Yes. | ||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | * A: Yes. It is described what the following consist of, which is nice for the reader to know. | ||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | * A: Yes, fine with the current skeleton. | ||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | * A: Yes. | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | * A: Add sources and add more text. The end of the article is thin. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 3 | ||
| + | Grammar and style: | ||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | * A: Yes. | ||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | * A: The wording is fine. I would recommended delete the word “nowadays” in the abstract. | ||
| + | * Note 1: I like the use of bullet’s, bold and italic and quotes. | ||
| + | * Note 2: Move the , after the word “planning” in stages of negotiation. And use . after “below”. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 4 | ||
| + | Figures and tables: | ||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | * A: Not used. | ||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | * A: Not used. | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | * A: Add tables and figures. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 5 | ||
| + | Interest and relevance: | ||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | * A: Fine. | ||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| + | * A: Yes, the abstract explains it quite good. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 6 | ||
| + | Depth of treatment: | ||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| + | * A: Yes. | ||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| + | * A: I think it does. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Question 7 | ||
| + | Annotated bibliography: | ||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| + | * A: No, since there is no specific reference. I like the use of “According to Lewicki,…”. | ||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| + | * A: No. | ||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| + | * A: I cannot tell, since the reference is not clear. Stating the author in the text as mention above, proves that some of it is based on empirical data. | ||
Revision as of 18:01, 24 February 2019
Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Take a look into the punctuation |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Not enough described. Make sure you clearly define the focus and describe it your tool/theory/concept. |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | The purpose is not explained |
| Relevance to curriculum | It can be relevant to the curriculum but at the moment it is not clearly related to project, program or portfolio management. |
| References | Missing correct way of referencing. Take a look into the references guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | The abstract should be a summary of your article. Take a look into some articles in the ConceptBox to see the structure of the abstract |
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen
Question 1
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
- A: Yes.
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: Nothing, except the layout. Make it a bit more rich with some line breaks.
Question 2
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
- A: Yes.
Is there a logical flow to the article?
- A: Yes. It is described what the following consist of, which is nice for the reader to know.
Does one part build upon the other?
- A: Yes, fine with the current skeleton.
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
- A: Yes.
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: Add sources and add more text. The end of the article is thin.
Question 3
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
- A: Yes.
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
- A: The wording is fine. I would recommended delete the word “nowadays” in the abstract.
- Note 1: I like the use of bullet’s, bold and italic and quotes.
- Note 2: Move the , after the word “planning” in stages of negotiation. And use . after “below”.
Question 4 Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear?
- A: Not used.
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
- A: Not used.
What would you suggest to improve?
- A: Add tables and figures.
Question 5
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
- A: Fine.
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
- A: Yes, the abstract explains it quite good.
Question 6
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
- A: Yes.
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
- A: I think it does.
Question 7
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
- A: No, since there is no specific reference. I like the use of “According to Lewicki,…”.
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
- A: No.
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
- A: I cannot tell, since the reference is not clear. Stating the author in the text as mention above, proves that some of it is based on empirical data.
