Talk:Portfolio Risk Management Process
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article you can describe briefly the different tools/techniques and then focus in a specific tool/technique or as you mentioned in your note (*) developing a process.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen
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 1 | Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen
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
Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?
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
General there is a nice structure and flow in the article where the different parts is going to build upon each other when its alle done :) - there is no contradictions no - i would maybe suggest to do a more thorough explanation of how to do the roadmap so you understand the technicalities you talk about in the limitation section
the 6 benefits of roadmap you mention is maybe a bit out of context when we haven't been introduced to the roadmap yet?
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
You have a very nice language - some writing mistakes in the limitations section just check it out (y)
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
Yes a good picture, don't know if you should make it yourself? perhaps you should talk a bit about "strategic alignment" as a concept/theory before diving into the specific section of roadmapping?
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
Yes i think it will be of high practical relevance when the application section is complete - maybe it will be stated a bit more why it is PM relevant when you talk more about the strategic alignment?
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
yes the abstract was creating some interest - so i think it will be interesting when it is completed
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
you need to briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article - and yes i think you try to cover the article nicely with theory instead of opinion
