Talk:Portfolio Risk Management Process

From apppm
Revision as of 13:10, 19 February 2018 by Joachim Schou Larsen (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search


Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; Ok.

In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article you can describe briefly the different tools/techniques and then focus in a specific tool/technique or as you mentioned in your note (*) developing a process.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen

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

I think it is nice that you from the start is "on spot" with the subject of the article - but maybe it is a bit too direct? maybe a little introduction of the issue and why it is relevant for PM? i think what you have written is fine but it need some kind of introduction ;)

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 regards to the introduction of the four areas you find important, so that is nice and well executed - i cannot though understand all in the sections you have written because you introduce many concepts or theories - i would suggest you introduced them in bullet point or in Bold so the reader can have a fix point on the different theory parts when reading

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

yes the language is fine - some typing errors in the abstract and identification section - you will find it when checking ;)

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

currently no figures - i know you have some - i would suggest you made some figures of ex. a risk register and perhaps some of the other tools you are talking about? it will help the reader understand the theory you are explaining

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

Yes i think it will have relevance when it is finished - i don't see any practical "help" in the article - are you going to present one of the mentioned tools with a user guide? (i would maybe suggest that?)

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 would suggest( as just mentioned above) maybe to show a tool you describe in the article, how to use it with regards to your subject? personally it would make it a bit more relevant as a reader.

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

Yes you have done a citation but when reading your article i thought you might need more? in both the identification section and the analyze section you mention many different technical terms - i would suggest backing them up with references

Personal tools