Talk:The Periodic Table of Project Management

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language	The text is coherent, however there's a few grammatical errors.
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good. There's a large emphasis on the periodic table used in chemistry. I understand this is used in combination with the periodic table of project management, however keep it to a minimum as possible. It's also difficult to understand what "field" is menat in "...three different ways that are used to divide the field up..." - this could be better explained.
Article purpose explanation	Well elaborated.
Relevance to curriculum	Relevant
References	Good references. Reach out if you have any technical issues with the referencing.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Casper Gandil Qvortrup

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

Yes it is very good. If any improvement suggestion, then i would recommend to shorten the part talking about the chemical periodic table. But not a necessity, since its the base for the rest.

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

Yes the structure is good and the linkage between the PMI knowledge areas with the PRINCE2 themes is well done. I think the argumentation in chapter 3 could be better, in general that chapter is vague compared to the rest of 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

Some minor errors, also i have some suggestions on rephrasings, which I will present tomorrow face2face.

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

I think the figures can be very good. The current quality is very poor. The caption to each could very shortly tell which model is which so the reader dont have to investigate that in the references. Would make the flow better. Also i think the Figure 1 need some more in-depth explenation, its one of the main parts of the article and from the article itself i was not able to understand the logical.

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

Its relevance is well explained. But i highly suggest to have a more in-depth analyze of the 2 periodic tables identifying their common and the juxtaposition, because they are very different.

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

With a final comparison between the two models and maybe even a proposed improved model or recommendations if applied, then i think it will be a very good article with a very interesting view on project management.

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

Its not done yet, so can't tell

Response to peer review: Brynja Benediktsdóttir

• Only one peer review was received

Question 1

It was decided to have the abstract with the information of the original periodic table.

Question 2

In chapter 3 more content was added in order to describe the periodic tables for project management better.

Question 3

Grammar and rephrasing of the article has been done.

Question 4

The quality of the figures are still not the best as the resource of the figures are in poor quality. More text was added to explain figure 1 better in the description of the elements.

Question 5

More content was added to the article

Question 6

Content added to the discussion tab

Question 7

Not applicable as the annotated bibliography had not been made at the time of the peer review