Talk:Shopping centres: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| '''Criteria''' || '''High/Medium/Low''' || | | '''Criteria''' || '''High/Medium/Low''' || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Content'''|| | | '''Content'''|| 8 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Context''' || || | | '''Context''' || 7 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Practical relevance''' || || | | '''Practical relevance''' || 8 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Focus''' || || | | '''Focus''' || 8 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Clarity''' || || | | '''Clarity''' || 8 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Critical approach''' || || | | '''Critical approach''' || 10 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Elaborateness (commitment) ''' || || | | '''Elaborateness (commitment) ''' || 8 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' || || | | '''Individual input & risk-taking ''' || 8 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Reader's attractiveness''' || || | | '''Reader's attractiveness''' || 10 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Formal features ''' || || | | '''Formal features ''' || 8 || | ||
|- | |- | ||
| '''Total (points)''' || ''' | | '''Total (points)''' || '''83''' || | ||
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 20:53, 6 March 2011
Literature review
Well done literature review: includes meta-reflection that could be used in further stqages of your research procedure.
I suggest that you concentrate in next step on description of the phenomenon using information from your resources. Then, you could write in a foreword (or amend your already written foreword) that this problem has many reasons: specify them as psychological, behavioral, economical etc. In conclusion you could say something about its negative effects.
You still need to decide what you consider to be the main lesson learned from your case study. Something that you could share with the rest of the world pointing out that specific conditions described (CR situation) provide some valuable experience for the others. Economic and other reasons are global, but concrete manifestations have to do something with our conditions.
--Jana Dlouha 18:48, 22 January 2011 (CET)
Peer review of the case study (by Caroline Reibe)
| Criteria | High/Medium/Low | |
| Content | 8 | |
| Context | 7 | |
| Practical relevance | 8 | |
| Focus | 8 | |
| Clarity | 8 | |
| Critical approach | 10 | |
| Elaborateness (commitment) | 8 | |
| Individual input & risk-taking | 8 | |
| Reader's attractiveness | 10 | |
| Formal features | 8 | |
| Total (points) | 83 |
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):
.....................................................................................