VCSEwiki:Peer review form for case studies: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
m (Admin moved page Peer review form for case studies to VCSEwiki:Peer review form for case studies) |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 12:01, 30 August 2017
Outline of review criteria for Case study review
| Criteria | Quality aspects to be considered in the case study | High/Medium/Low | |
| Content | The content of the case study is relevant for this genre.
Good resources for this type of writing – both describe the real case and provide more general reflection. Resources well used – important features selected, arguments justified on them. |
10 / 5 / 0 | |
| Context | Local and global circumstances of the problem sufficiently described; general (theoretical) background outlined. | ||
| Practical relevance | Main goal of the case study writing is transmitting of some practical experience – was this goal fulfilled? | ||
| Focus | Core problem of the case identified.
Conclusions made it explicit and transferable. |
||
| Clarity | Logical structure: from description to generalization and posing analytical questions.
Formally coherent (paragraphs and ideas connected) |
||
| Critical approach | No bias, opposing views presented. | ||
| Elaborateness (commitment) | Sufficient length and number of resources, details elaborated. | ||
| Individual input & risk-taking | New themes, ideas, original (but justified) conclusions… | ||
| Reader's attractiveness | Did you enjoy reading the case study? To which extent? | ||
| Formal features | Structure, headlines, citation norms, language | ||
| Total (points) | max 100 |
Form for students' evaluation
- just copy and paste (from editing mode), and fill in you assessment in relevant column!
| Criteria | High/Medium/Low | |
| Content | 10 / 5 / 0 | |
| Context | ||
| Practical relevance | ||
| Focus | ||
| Clarity | ||
| Critical approach | ||
| Elaborateness (commitment) | ||
| Individual input & risk-taking | ||
| Reader's attractiveness | ||
| Formal features | ||
| Total (points) | max 100 |
Written Comments for Author(s)
.....................................................................................
General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):
1. Acceptable as is
2. Acceptable with minor modifications
3. Might be accepted after major modifications
4. Unacceptable (provide reasons):
.....................................................................................