Talk:Global-labor, Risk or Opportunity?

From VCSEwiki
Revision as of 13:05, 10 January 2010 by Fabian Siggemann (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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