445
edits
Talk:Loss of biodiversity - caused and solved by globalisation?: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Talk:Loss of biodiversity - caused and solved by globalisation? (view source)
Revision as of 16:13, 16 January 2010
, 16:13, 16 January 2010no edit summary
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Jana Dlouha (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=Peer-Review= | OK, Svea, very good points! You are right, there should be personal dimension and viewpoint present in the article. Some of the authors have written more facts technical information etc. in their articles – supposing that thus they provide very neutral (“objective”) position. But we cannot use ONLY this optics as the decision based on hard sciences should be not only reasoned but also GOOD (from the viewpoint of different discourse – ethical one – that means sometimes not having most efficient or accountable reason/solution). | ||
But on the other hand, in relation to biodiversity there are so many banal arguments already present everywhere that it if we try to argue this way or derive some very general conclusions, it should be very difficult to concentrate on something with analytic value in a short article. | |||
--[[User:Jana Dlouha|Jana Dlouha]] 15:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
=Peer-Review - Svea Marie Wehling= | |||
Paper title: Loss of Biodiversity- caused and solved by Globalization? | Paper title: Loss of Biodiversity- caused and solved by Globalization? | ||
==1. Basic criteria== | ==1. Basic criteria== | ||
1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme | 1.1. Relevance of the subject to the general theme '''high - medium''' | ||
1.2. Coherence of the content with the title and thesis | 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 | 1.3. Quality of the content from the methodological point of view (see below)'''high - medium''' | ||
1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below | 1.4. Quality of the text from the formal point of view (see below) '''high''' | ||
==2. Summary Comments for Author(s)== | ==2. Summary Comments for Author(s)== | ||
2.1. Contribution to theory or practice | 2.1. Contribution to theory or practice '''medium''' | ||
2.2. Originality of the paper | 2.2. Originality of the paper '''high''' | ||
2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors | 2.3. Adequate references to prior and related works by other authors '''very high''' | ||
2.4. Accurate information | 2.4. Accurate information '''Yes''' | ||
2.5. Current information | 2.5. Current information '''Yes''' | ||
2.6. Methodology | 2.6. Methodology '''Yes''' | ||
2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) '''Excellent''' | 2.7. Writing style is generally (Excellent/Readable/Poor) '''Excellent''' | ||
2.7.1. Paper is logically organised | 2.7.1. Paper is logically organised '''Yes''' (see below) | ||
2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented | 2.7.2. Ideas are clearly presented '''Yes''' (see below) | ||
2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) '''Yes''' | 2.8. Meets submission requirements (abstract, length, style, citation rules) (Yes/No) '''Yes''' | ||
| Line 57: | Line 62: | ||
--[[User:Wehling|Wehling]] 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | --[[User:Wehling|Wehling]] 19:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Assessment from January 4th == | == Assessment from January 4th - Jana Dlouhá== | ||
Remarks: | Remarks: | ||