Talk:The Framework of Project Governance

Revision as of 14:00, 17 February 2018

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Coherent

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow.

Purpose explanation Well addressed, however what is the main theme of the article? Is it the bottom-up approach? Needs further clarification

References Try to add appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Very relevant and good structure

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonas

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 the abstract is good and finds the key focus. The structure is good and easy to follow. Maby you could add some of the conclusions or advantages of Project Governance to 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 is very well written and have a good logical flow. The parts lead up to each other and are free of contradictions. You can consider the following improvements:

• Discuss the used reference and sources, and be critical about this.
• Adding a conclusion
• Adding a section explaining how Project Governance can be implemented in projects.
• Explaining if PG can be used in all industries and all projects
• Add some pictures which could be used to support arguments.

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

Right now there are no pictures, I would, therefore, suggest that one or more pictures added to the article. (Remeber to reference where the picture is from)

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