Talk:Global-labor, Risk or Opportunity?: Difference between revisions

From VCSEwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 16: Line 16:
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'''


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'''


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) '''Medium'''


1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low)
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) '''Medium'''


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'''


2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) ......................
2.2. Originality of the paper '''High'''


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'''


2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) .........................
2.4. Accurate information '''Yes'''


2.5. Current information (Yes/No) .......................
2.5. Current information '''Yes'''


2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) ...........................
2.6. Methodology '''Yes'''


2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) ....................
2.7. Writing style is generally '''Readable'''


2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) ....................
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised '''Yes'''


2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) ....................
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented '''Yes'''


2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No)..........
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) '''Yes'''


3. Written Comments for Author(s)
3. Written Comments for Author(s)
Line 54: 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 13:05, 10 January 2010

You consider only those labors who migrate to another country - very often the company migrates where the labor is cheaper. Then, so called sweet shops emerge, with very bad work conditions and unstable legal environment.

It is interesting that you call benefit what all of the others would rather call risk (overexpoitation of human resources).

Risk or Opportunity for whom? Who bears the uncertainty related to this phenomenon?

--Jana Dlouha 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Paper title: Global-labor, Risk or Opportunity?

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Reviewer´s assessment:

1. Basic criteria

1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme High

1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis High

1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) Medium

1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) Medium

2. Summary Comments for Author(s)

2.1. Contribution to theory or practice High

2.2. Originality of the paper High

2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors High

2.4. Accurate information Yes

2.5. Current information Yes

2.6. Methodology Yes

2.7. Writing style is generally Readable

2.7.1. Paper is logically organised Yes

2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented Yes

2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) 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