Damianos Giankakis Peer Review

peer-rev.md

1. 2 / 5
2. 1 / 5 (I can't even click the sources)
3. 3 / 5
4. 3 / 5 (Page numb. begins at abstract, Pie Chart should be at appendix)
5. 3 / 5 (Page numb. begins at abstract, Pie Chart should be at appendix)
6. Challenges of Data Driven decision making, were thoroughly analysed and discussed.
7. Historical Development Chapter, was not thoroughly analysed and developed as it should have been. It stated only some keypoints of the history of the decision making science, and didn't analysed as much as it should have.

1. 3/5
2. 3/5
3. 3/5
4. 3/5 (Many guidelines are disregarded, not just numbering and the use of the appendix, the report jumps from one state to the other.)
5. 2/5 (Many guidelines are disregarded. Sources formatting is really bad for the reader. Could have been corrected.)
6. The effort put in resource gathering is adequate. There was a very good attempt in pinpointing challenges that data-driven decision making faces in the modern world with examples to showcase them. Also a positive aspect of the report was the fact that the team analysed their working methodology.
7. The formatting is one of the major factors that were disregarded. Better care around the sources section could have been taken, as there are huge gaps that affect the reader when they try to verify the research. The historical aspect of data in decision making was very short compared to the rest of the report. A more appropriate approach for a reader that needs to verify the current state of literature related to the topic would be that of pinpointing general historical facts about the field and enriching them in the rest of the main part with modern cases of study. The report also lacked cohesion in some parts, mainly in the main body, or had cohesion-related dialect/idioms "forced" on it by the use of words that do not suit that specific part of the text, based on the text around it. That, although it could be resolved with a restructuring of the way the parts were presented in the report, made the general reading experience uneasy. More time could have been spared in the overall presentation of the report, since the greatest part of the final product was about references being reduced to their main points. While the research was adequate, the presentation of said research lacked and therefore reduced the value of the work.