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: a method description
Author: Lianna Versluis
Reviewer: Nikol Gkerpini
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?
Are the figures created by the
author him/herself?
x
Is the example understandable
and informative?
x
Do the authors provide one or
more usable templates with the
example?
x
Reader’s comments
All the sections are adequate. No missing
sections. Abstract and conclusion could be
added as a plus.
There are no grammatical or spelling
problems. Some sentences could be
rearranged to improve the flow of the
reading.
Quite clear though some sentences could
be rearranged and become simpler.
Apart from the figure adopted from the
main Feblowitz & Greenspan (1998) paper
which is identical, the rest figures are
created by the author.
Example
Method description
x
Is the PDD properly formatted?
It is pretty understandable and
informative, but could additionally write
something about the deliverable given in
the template.
The template is very usefull and some of
the text written above it could also be
moved in the example. This way there will
be greater connection between the two
parts of the paper
Should be reconsidered. Some association
naming sounds like activities that have not
be illustrated. Given the basic paper, some
concepts should be further analyzed (such
as Impact) or at least illustrated as closed
concept. Activities are not uniformly
named and some of them are missing or
expressed as associations (such as Examine
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?
Changes and impacts)
Given the basic paper, some concepts
should be further analyzed (such as
Impact) or at least illustrated as closed
concept.
Quite good tables, although references are
missing from the concept table and actors
are not referred in the activity table. And
as said before activities should be
reconsidered.
Minor errors
Oberndorf & Sledge (2000)
Yes
yes