|
|
| Line 16: |
Line 16: |
| | |'''References'''|| Good | | |'''References'''|| Good |
| | |- | | |- |
| | + | |
| | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Hagos Zeru Gide''== | | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Hagos Zeru Gide''== |
| − | ===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 stakeholders and stakeholders analysis part gives some fundamental definitions, that introduce the reader to the topic. The abstract part has not been completed yet, but if it will contain the subtopics mentioned below, it should be very clear.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Question 2 · TEXT===
| |
| − | '''Structure and logic of the article:'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is the argument clear? Yes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Does one part build upon the other? It will.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? -
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? -
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Question 3 · TEXT===
| |
| − | '''Grammar and style:'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes, only one word change could be done. In the first sentence instead of externally-outside may fit better.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What would you suggest to improve?-
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Question 4 · TEXT===
| |
| − | '''Figures and tables:'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? -
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Question 5 · TEXT===
| |
| − | '''Interest and relevance:'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? It would be interesting if there was a part about the influence of the different stakeholders, including the risks that could occur if one or more of the stages of the analysis did not give satisfying results. If there is also available some kind of importance hierarchy among the stakeholders, depending on the the kind of the project.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Question 6 · TEXT===
| |
| − | '''Depth of treatment:'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? It seems that it could, once finished.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What would you suggest to improve?-
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ===Question 7 · TEXT===
| |
| − | '''Annotated bibliography:'''
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Sandro Pina''==
| |
| | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== |
| | '''Quality of the summary:''' | | '''Quality of the summary:''' |
Revision as of 11:02, 26 February 2019
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity |
Really good
|
| Language |
Good - few mistakes
|
| Description of the tool/theory/concept |
Good
|
| Purpose explanation |
Really good
|
| Title of the Wiki |
Good but could add the abbreviation too (PRiSM)
|
| Relevance to curriculum |
Relevant
|
| References |
Good
|
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Hagos Zeru Gide
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
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
Answer here
