Talk:Conceptual levels of competence

Feedback on Abstract

Text clarity	Good but it could be more coherent.
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Project management competence is described but could be more elaborated.
Explanation of the purpose of the article	Needs to be elaborated
Relevance to curriculum	Relevant
References	Ok
Other	At the moment, the focus of the article is bit broad and it is not clearly defined

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Robert Kjønås

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 gives us a good insight in what the article is about. However, there is some spelling mistakes in the abstract.

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 flow in the article is ok. It is clear that the parts that is included in the introduction part is important for the rest of the article. However, the introduction could be written in a way that makes it easier for the reader to follow the red line in 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

There is spelling mistakes and some grammatical errors, especially in the abstract. But there is not a lot of errors.

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

The figure is clear and fits good in with the text. I noticed that the bibliography is aligned with the picture even though they are not related. This should be changed in my opinion.

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

Through the abstract, it becomes clear that this text is related to the work of the Project Manager. Based on this, the article is very relevant. However, it could be explained more how the pm-competence is related to organizations and so on.

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

The article is interesting and not too academic. It focuses on different aspects and how they are applied, which is good because it makes it easy to keep track of what the article is about. The depth of the article also seem to fit with the length of the article. If the article is longer, then it also needs to go deeper into the material. Looks good.

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

Key references is placed at the end of the article, and it seems like the key points in the article is based on facts and not opinions. The references is familiar books to this course, so it looks like a good reference list to me.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Μaria Stefaniotou

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 stakeholders and stakeholders analysis part gives some fundamental definitions, that introduce the reader to the topic. The abstract part has not been completed yet, but if it will contain the subtopics mentioned below, it should be very clear.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? It will.

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? -

What would you suggest to improve? -

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes, only one word change could be done. In the first sentence instead of externally-outside may fit better.

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?-

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -

What would you suggest to improve? -

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? It would be interesting if there was a part about the influence of the different stakeholders, including the risks that could occur if one or more of the stages of the analysis did not give satisfying results. If there is also available some kind of importance hierarchy among the stakeholders, depending on the the kind of the project.

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.

What would you suggest to improve?-

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Rikke Andersen

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 language is confusing, I'm not certain what is meant by the author. The three different categories discussed in the article are listed which gives a nice overview.

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 three categories stated from the beginning gives a natural flow throughout.

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Minor errors that will likely be corrected on a second read-through

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? No

What would you suggest to improve? The language can be sharper, shorter sentences could be an advantage

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Only one figure, nice and clear

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? The figure supports the text

What would you suggest to improve? Maybe a figure or two more - maybe of how "competence" changes as you move from an individual to teams to organizations

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? The topic is academically relevant, not sure if it is practical

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? More time could be spent on explaining the importance

What would you suggest to improve? Elaborate on the importance of the topic, what happens if the correct level of competence is not present?

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? I think it will be once finished

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Not at the moment

What would you suggest to improve? -

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Currently only one annotated reference

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Seems to be

What would you suggest to improve? Add more references as you get further into depth with the topic