Talk:Followership

From apppm
Revision as of 21:57, 25 February 2019 by Mariapanousi (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Marie Bukkholm Question 1 · TEXT Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? No abstract yet.

What would you suggest to improve? -


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? Yes

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

What would you suggest to improve? Could be beneficial to mention in the start of the article which models that will be presented in the article.


Question 3 · TEXT Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? The sentences are a bit long sometimes, which makes it a bit hard to follow (at least when the reader has no previous knowledge of the subject)


Question 4 · TEXT Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? No figures/tables

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, very good with chapter "Changing Perspective"

What would you suggest to improve? -


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? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? -


Question 7 · TEXT Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? No

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? No

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? Some references to support the article.

Contents

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Μaria Panousi

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?

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?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?-


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?


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?

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?


Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

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

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox