Talk:Negotiation Skills - Revision history

MadsMohrMadsen at 19:45, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T19:45:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:45, 24 February 2019
Line 89:		Line 89:
	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
	* A: I cannot tell, since the reference is not clear. Stating the author in the text as mention above, proves that some of it is based on empirical data.		* A: I cannot tell, since the reference is not clear. Stating the author in the text as mention above, proves that some of it is based on empirical data.





			Mads Mohr Madsen

			Question 1
			Quality of the summary:
			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
			* A: Yes.
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: -


			Question 2
			Structure and logic of the article:
			Is the argument clear?
			* A: yes
			Is there a logical flow to the article?
			* A: yes
			Does one part build upon the other?
			* A: yes
			Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
			* A: yes
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: well it dosn't seem to be done, so i'm gonna leave that open. the first part is good.



			Question 3
			Grammar and style:
			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
			* A: i guess
			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
			* A: yes


			Question 4

			Figures and tables:
			Are figures and tables clear?
			* A: -
			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
			* A: -
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: I could be overview of the process or something like that, but the need is not that bad


			Question 5
			Interest and relevance:
			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			* A: yes
			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
			* A: yes


			Question 6
			Depth of treatment:
			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
			* A: yes
			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
			* A: yes, I guess


			Question 7
			Annotated bibliography:
			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
			* A: no
			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
			* A: no
			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
			* A: well more sources could be added, but I guess the author knows, it dosn't seem to be done

Mads Kronholm at 17:01, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T17:01:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 24 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	\|}		\|}



	'''Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen'''		'''Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen'''
Line 39:		Line 41:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	* A: Add sources and add more text. The end of the article is thin.		* A: Add sources and add more text. The end of the article is thin.



Line 49:		Line 52:
	* Note 1: I like the use of bullet’s, bold and italic and quotes.		* Note 1: I like the use of bullet’s, bold and italic and quotes.
	* Note 2: Move the , after the word “planning” in stages of negotiation. And use . after “below”.		* Note 2: Move the , after the word “planning” in stages of negotiation. And use . after “below”.


	Question 4		Question 4

	Figures and tables:		Figures and tables:
	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear?

Mads Kronholm at 17:01, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T17:01:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:01, 24 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	\|}		\|}

			'''Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Mads Kronholm Petersen'''


			Question 1
			Quality of the summary:
			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
			* A: Yes.
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: Nothing, except the layout. Make it a bit more rich with some line breaks.


			Question 2
			Structure and logic of the article:
			Is the argument clear?
			* A: Yes.
			Is there a logical flow to the article?
			* A: Yes. It is described what the following consist of, which is nice for the reader to know.
			Does one part build upon the other?
			* A: Yes, fine with the current skeleton.
			Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
			* A: Yes.
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: Add sources and add more text. The end of the article is thin.


			Question 3
			Grammar and style:
			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
			* A: Yes.
			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
			* A: The wording is fine. I would recommended delete the word “nowadays” in the abstract.
			* Note 1: I like the use of bullet’s, bold and italic and quotes.
			* Note 2: Move the , after the word “planning” in stages of negotiation. And use . after “below”.

			Question 4
			Figures and tables:
			Are figures and tables clear?
			* A: Not used.
			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
			* A: Not used.
			What would you suggest to improve?
			* A: Add tables and figures.


			Question 5
			Interest and relevance:
			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			* A: Fine.
			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
			* A: Yes, the abstract explains it quite good.


			Question 6
			Depth of treatment:
			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
			* A: Yes.
			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
			* A: I think it does.


			Question 7
			Annotated bibliography:
			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
			* A: No, since there is no specific reference. I like the use of “According to Lewicki,…”.
			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
			* A: No.
			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
			* A: I cannot tell, since the reference is not clear. Stating the author in the text as mention above, proves that some of it is based on empirical data.

Raquel Valente: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Take a look into the punctuation |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not enough described. Make sure you clea..."

2019-02-19T10:51:13Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Take a look into the punctuation |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not enough described. Make sure you clea..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Take a look into the punctuation
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Not enough described. Make sure you clearly define the focus and describe it your tool/theory/concept.
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| The purpose is not explained
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| It can be relevant to the curriculum but at the moment it is not clearly related to project, program or portfolio management.
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing correct way of referencing. Take a look into the references guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Other'''|| The abstract should be a summary of your article. Take a look into some articles in the ConceptBox to see the structure of the abstract

|}