Method engineering paper review table
Read the paper, and rate the criteria below as strong / satisfactory / weak (please check the cell that
applies). Please add comments to clarify.
Topic: Scenario based analysis of COTS acquisition impacts
Author: Johan Meppelink
Reviewer: Cassandra Renes
Weak SatisStrong Criteria
factory
Overall
x
Are the basic sections (intro,
example, etc.) adequate? If not,
what is missing?
x
Are there any grammatical or
spelling problems?
x
Is the writer's writing style
clear?
x
Example
x
Are the figures created by the
author him/herself?
Is the example understandable
and informative?
x
Method description
Do the authors provide one or
more usable templates with the
example?
Reader’s comments
The only thing I miss is an clear explanation
of how the method works. In the
introduction some parts of the method are
described, but how the method works
precisely should be described more clearly.
There a lot of spelling errors. I highlighted
the errors in the other document. Also
your sentences are often too long.
Some sentences are really long. Try to
divide the sentence in multiple sentences
and make better use of the comma. There
were some sentences with were a couple
of lines long and had multiple comma's. In
these cases, just divide the sentence.
I'm not sure if the first figure is created by
the author himself, but all the other figures
are. Besides, the first figure would be a
pain in the ass to create yourself ;)
Yes, only why not describe one of the
other parts of the method. The baseline
scenario is also clear without an example.
Illustrating the Summaries of salient
changes would add more value because
this step is less familiar.
The example of the baggage system is a
good example. Everyone can relate to the
example.
Yes, the template is provided in the
appendix. Only the appendix is located in
front of the Reference section.
x
Is the PDD properly formatted?
x
Does the PDD have a good level
of detail?
x
Are the activity and concept
table informative?
Related literature & references
x
Does the writer cite sources
adequately and appropriately?
Note any incorrect formatting.
x
Are there enough references to
other sources?
x
Are the references properly
formatted?
The PDD uses the guidelines provided in
the lectures. Only in the first PDD lines are
not straight and some associations should
get another description. Like encountered
while writing can be described differently.
The PDD has maybe too much detail. There
are lines going everywhere so sometimes it
is not always clear what line goes where.
The PDD should either be divided into
several smaller PDDs or the abstraction
level should be changed so there is less
detail in the PDD.
Yes they are informative, only describes
the activity table relationships which are
not present in the PDD.
The citations in the text are correct. Only
the only from LinkedIn I'm not sure about.
All the references are useful and related to
the topic.
Not all references are formatted properly.
You should check all your references again.
Especially the references to papers from
conferences are not properly. You should
use:
Author, A. (year). Title of the paper.
Proceedings of the…, Location of
conference/workshop, pages.