Talk:Human behaviors in scheduling

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. look at "The majority of schedules is created...")
 
(→‎Feedback on Abstract:)
Line 12: Line 12:
 
|'''References'''|| Add references in your abstract, if needed, to give more credibility.
 
|'''References'''|| Add references in your abstract, if needed, to give more credibility.
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Ronglian Wei''==
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
It has a very clear view and seems the following article would be well structured.
 +
 +
The keyword can be used in bold, which would make it easier for readers to get the key point at a glance:)
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
Haven't seen the subsequent context yet.
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
As for now, it's all good.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
There isn't any figure or table.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
Cannot tell it since the article hasn't been fully delivered.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
I think it's interesting for a practitioner to read in terms of this topic.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
No reference right now.

Revision as of 23:29, 25 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. look at "The majority of schedules is created with the ambition of enhance the time-management during a project and reducing unnecessary risks"). There are other mistakes, so please read the abstract again.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good.
Article purpose explanation Well elaborated.
Relevance to curriculum Relevant.
References Add references in your abstract, if needed, to give more credibility.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ronglian Wei

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

It has a very clear view and seems the following article would be well structured.

The keyword can be used in bold, which would make it easier for readers to get the key point at a glance:)


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

Haven't seen the subsequent context yet.


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

As for now, it's all good.

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

There isn't any figure or table.

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

Cannot tell it since the article hasn't been fully delivered.

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

I think it's interesting for a practitioner to read in terms of this topic.

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

No reference right now.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Human_behaviors_in_scheduling&oldid=67014"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox