Talk:Risk Management in Renewable Energy Projects

Abstract Feedback

Updated 08-02-18

Text Clarity; in general Ok, there are some paragraphs not clear enough. (done)

Language; minor grammar issues. (done)

References; missing references related to the standards, you have only one reference and in the text you mentioned PBOK, I believe you meant PMBOK. (done)

The Abstract is still too generic, the article, so far, does not shows me why should risk management in Energy projects differs from other types of projects, what is the difference?, try to elaborate more this aspect(s). (in process)

What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?, still not clear in the article. (done)

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ignasi Gironés Cádiz

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

Abstract explains the context of the article but maybe focus a bit too much on projects of non renewable energy. Good as a way to justify the change.I would suggest that maybe a bigger part of section 3 could be reflected at the beginning.

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 argument is clear and the flow is logical without contradictions.

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

Clear language that helps the reading, no changes needed.

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

Figures and tables clear but might be too general and not focused on the topic. There is a lot of research and a lot of numbers written in the text that could that be plotted to make a better first impression of depth.

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

Article is relevant as renewable energy gains importance

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 interesting to read and there is research behind it as lots of data are described during the text

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

Everything is clearly justified with multiple references.