Talk:Society and Globalization: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Paper title: Society and Globalization | |||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
1. Basic criteria | 1. Basic criteria | ||
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) | 1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) '''high''' | ||
1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) | 1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) '''medium''' | ||
1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low).. | 1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) '''high''' | ||
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) '''high''' | |||
2. Summary Comments for Author(s) | 2. Summary Comments for Author(s) | ||
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) | 2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) '''medium''' | ||
2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) | 2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) '''medium''' | ||
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) | 2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) '''high''' | ||
2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) | 2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) '''high''' | ||
2.5. Current information (Yes/No) | 2.5. Current information (Yes/No) '''high''' | ||
2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) | 2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) '''high''' | ||
2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) | 2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) '''for the most part excellent, sometimes readable''' | ||
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) | 2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) '''yes''' | ||
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) .. | 2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) '''in between''' | ||
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) '''yes''' | |||
3. Written Comments for Author(s) | 3. Written Comments for Author(s) | ||
4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option): | 4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option): | ||
| Line 49: | Line 54: | ||
4.1. Publish as is | 4.1. Publish as is | ||
4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications | 4.2. '''Acceptable with minor modifications''' | ||
4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications | 4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications | ||
Revision as of 16:44, 8 January 2010
The text is really interesting, even working "methodologically" analyzing the term "Globalization". My only remark - it starts with all of the social problems and finish with only one - how not to feel quilty as a winner of globalisation?
You could write something as an interface - winners obviously have some political power or instruments, so maybe your "behaviorist" solution would have limited impact on the state of affairs (or document the opposit). It is more the way how to live honestly within all these processess. Then you might mention some psychological features connected to the problem.
--Jana Dlouha 11:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Paper title: Society and Globalization
Reviewer´s assessment:
1. Basic criteria
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) high
1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) medium
1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) high
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) high
2. Summary Comments for Author(s)
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) medium
2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) medium
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) high
2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) high
2.5. Current information (Yes/No) high
2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) high
2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) for the most part excellent, sometimes readable
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) yes
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) in between
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) yes
3. Written Comments for Author(s)
4. General Recommendation for articles (highlight one option):
4.1. Publish as is
4.2. Acceptable with minor modifications
4.3. Might be accepted after major modifications
4.4. Unacceptable (select following option):
4.4.1. Not appropriate for the content/theme of the Course
4.4.2. Technically deficient
4.4.3. Quality of presentation is poor