|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | ==Feedback on Abstract:==
| |
| | | | |
| − | {|
| |
| − | |'''Text clarity'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Language'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Title of the Wiki'''|| Good
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
| |
| − | |-
| |
| − | |'''Other'''|| I know you got the title from the Excel sheet but consider only writing about evolutionary purpose in project management or program management and not both
| |
| − | |}
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Srdjan Gluhovic''==
| |
| − | ===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 provides the reader with a good and coherent overview of what the article is about. The purpose is described fine and suits the general topic. A suggestion will be to have some references 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 article has a logical flow with clear arguments regards the background explanation and Extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation section. The different sections make it easy for the reader to separate the content in each section. From the headline, the flow also makes sure that one part builds upon the other one. Since the article is not entirely ready no further comments, keep up the good work.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | I did notice grammatical errors in the text, and I would suggest running the article through a spelling check program like Grammarly. Otherwise, the sections do not have unnecessary fill words.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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 figures are beautiful and relevant which sums up the important points of the article.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | The article is practical with the academic relevance, especially for a reader who does not have any idea about this theory.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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 as it describes a purpose as a motivational driver in the project. It highlights some important aspects, but since the article is not finished, it is difficult to give further suggestion other than to complete the rest and make sure everything fits together and maybe include applications as a section including practical examples.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===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===
| |
| − | The article does not cite previous work because the article is not completed. Suggestions will be to create references and briefly summarize them at the end of the article.
| |
