40
edits
Talk:Global-labor, Risk or Opportunity?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Global-labor, Risk or Opportunity? (view source)
Revision as of 12:55, 10 January 2010
, 12:55, 10 January 2010no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) (Created page with '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…') |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | --[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Paper title: | |||
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" | |||
Reviewer´s assessment: | |||
1. Basic criteria | |||
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme (High/Medium/Low) | |||
1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis (High/Medium/Low) | |||
1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) | |||
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) (High/Medium/Low) | |||
2. Summary Comments for Author(s) | |||
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice (High/Medium/Low) ...................... | |||
2.2. Originality of the paper (High/Medium/Low) ...................... | |||
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors (High/Medium/Low) ...................... | |||
2.4. Accurate information (Yes/No) ......................... | |||
2.5. Current information (Yes/No) ....................... | |||
2.6. Methodology (Yes/No) ........................... | |||
2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) .................... | |||
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised (Yes/No) .................... | |||
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented (Yes/No) .................... | |||
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No).......... | |||
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 | |||