Talk:Beyond the Triple Constraints
(→Abstract Feedback) |
(→Abstract Feedback) |
||
| (18 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Question 1== | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here == |
| − | ===Quality of the summary:=== | + | ===Question 1=== |
| + | ====Quality of the summary:==== | ||
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
| − | ==Question 2== | + | ===Question 2=== |
| − | ===Structure and logic of the article:=== | + | ====Structure and logic of the article:==== |
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| Line 24: | Line 25: | ||
Answer 2 | Answer 2 | ||
| − | ==Question 3 == | + | ===Question 3 === |
| − | ===Grammar and style:=== | + | ====Grammar and style:==== |
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| Line 36: | Line 37: | ||
| − | ==Question 4== | + | ===Question 4=== |
| − | ===Figures and tables:=== | + | ====Figures and tables:==== |
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| Line 48: | Line 49: | ||
| − | ==Question 5== | + | ===Question 5=== |
| − | ===Interest and relevance:=== | + | ====Interest and relevance:==== |
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| Line 60: | Line 61: | ||
| − | ==Question 6== | + | ===Question 6=== |
| − | ===Depth of treatment:=== | + | ====Depth of treatment:==== |
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| Line 72: | Line 73: | ||
| − | ==Question 7 == | + | ===Question 7 === |
| − | ===Annotated bibliography:=== | + | ====Annotated bibliography:==== |
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| Line 84: | Line 85: | ||
Answer 7 | Answer 7 | ||
| − | |||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here == | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here == | ||
| − | ==Question 1 == | + | ===Question 1=== |
| − | ===Quality of the summary:=== | + | ====Quality of the summary:==== |
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
| − | ==Question 2== | + | ===Question 2=== |
| − | ===Structure and logic of the article:=== | + | ====Structure and logic of the article:==== |
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| Line 113: | Line 113: | ||
Answer 2 | Answer 2 | ||
| − | ==Question 3 == | + | ===Question 3 === |
| − | ===Grammar and style:=== | + | ====Grammar and style:==== |
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| Line 125: | Line 125: | ||
| − | ==Question 4== | + | ===Question 4=== |
| − | ===Figures and tables:=== | + | ====Figures and tables:==== |
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| Line 137: | Line 137: | ||
| − | ==Question 5== | + | ===Question 5=== |
| − | ===Interest and relevance:=== | + | ====Interest and relevance:==== |
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
| − | ==Question 6== | + | ===Question 6=== |
| − | ===Depth of treatment:=== | + | ====Depth of treatment:==== |
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
| − | ==Question 7 == | + | ===Question 7 === |
| − | ===Annotated bibliography:=== | + | ====Annotated bibliography:==== |
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
Answer 7 | Answer 7 | ||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 19:45, 19 February 2018
Contents
|
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
[edit] Question 1
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 2
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 3
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 4
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 5
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 6
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 7
[edit] 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
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
[edit] Question 1
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 2
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 3
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 4
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 5
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 6
[edit] 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
[edit] Question 7
[edit] 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
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good. Minor error e.g. writing "constraint" when "constrain" is meant
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but paragraph 2 is difficult to follow: Does "other constraints" refer to constraints within the quality constraint?
Purpose explanation Good, but a lot of constraints have been introduced in the abstract (see comment above) - will the article focus on a particular few or all of them?
References Good, but add the mandatory references in the "Reference material"
Relevance of article Definitely relevant, but look at the comments above for improvement
