Talk:Systems Theory in Project Management

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Could be el...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Casper Claudinger''==
 +
===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 abstract sounds quite exciting and has an appropriate length. The content, structure and flow of the article is clearly presented, though the article is not finished yet.''
 +
 +
===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 text has a high content level and comes around many good terms and definitions. I definitely like the flow and that you get what you expect from the title.''
 +
 +
===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 text clarity is quite good. There are some small grammatical mistakes here and there, but nothing that disturbs the reading. The writing style is exciting and draws in the reader. Sometimes you repeat yourself, like "Systems theory, known also as systems thinking" appears twice. Also, be more consistent with the use of capital letters in terms, such as "Systems Thinking". You sometimes write it with small letters, sometimes without an s on Systems.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''There are no figures or tables yet.''
 +
 +
===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 definitely relevant and has academic relevance. Just keep working with the stuff you have presented in the abstract.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Since the article hasn't come so far yet it is difficult to tell. However, the part that is available looks promising. Just like the answer to Question 5.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''The use of references is appropriate, but there's still missing the section with annotations. I know this might be some of the last work one will do on the article, so no worries.''
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Sandro Pina''==
 +
===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''
 +
 +
 
==Feedback on Abstract:==
 
==Feedback on Abstract:==
  

Latest revision as of 11:52, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Casper Claudinger

[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

The abstract sounds quite exciting and has an appropriate length. The content, structure and flow of the article is clearly presented, though the article is not finished yet.

[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 text has a high content level and comes around many good terms and definitions. I definitely like the flow and that you get what you expect from the title.

[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

The text clarity is quite good. There are some small grammatical mistakes here and there, but nothing that disturbs the reading. The writing style is exciting and draws in the reader. Sometimes you repeat yourself, like "Systems theory, known also as systems thinking" appears twice. Also, be more consistent with the use of capital letters in terms, such as "Systems Thinking". You sometimes write it with small letters, sometimes without an s on Systems.

[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

There are no figures or tables yet.

[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 definitely relevant and has academic relevance. Just keep working with the stuff you have presented in the abstract.

[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

Since the article hasn't come so far yet it is difficult to tell. However, the part that is available looks promising. Just like the answer to Question 5.

[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

The use of references is appropriate, but there's still missing the section with annotations. I know this might be some of the last work one will do on the article, so no worries.

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Sandro Pina

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here


[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Article purpose explanation Could be elaborated
Relevance to curriculum The topic is relevant. Make sure you keep it within project management. Also make sure you narrow down the focus within the systems theory/systems thinking. Perhaps you can focus on concept/tool and describe it more in depth.
References Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Systems_Theory_in_Project_Management&oldid=66583"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox