Talk:Risk responses
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Ína Salome Sturludóttir') |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen') |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | No figures. but nice table. the table is easy to read and gives a good summary of the key point and what that can be done with eaither threats or opportunities. | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | The article is academic relevance as it uses a little bit of theory within risk assesment and analysis. | |
| + | |||
| + | yes the introduction, gives a nice action on why it is relevvant. but in the end you should also descripe why you article are relevant and how it can be used furhter. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 13:10, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen'
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 would be nice if there was a headline with either summary og absract. It is not clear that the first part is an introduction. But anyways, the first part highligts the focus points, and gives a nice introduction on what the article will include
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
nice and logical flow through the article, makes a nice structure, which makes it easy to read
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
im an not an english expert in gramma and spelling.
But nice language with a small amout of fill words. makes it easy to read
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
No figures. but nice table. the table is easy to read and gives a good summary of the key point and what that can be done with eaither threats or opportunities.
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 academic relevance as it uses a little bit of theory within risk assesment and analysis.
yes the introduction, gives a nice action on why it is relevvant. but in the end you should also descripe why you article are relevant and how it can be used furhter.
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
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Ína Salome Sturludóttir'
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
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
