Deliverable Review Form

Identification of the deliverable or milestone
Project: EMI Deliverable or milestone identifier: D2.3.3
Title: DNA2.3.3 - Dissemination and Use of Knowledge Plan Doc. identifier: EMI-DXXX-CDSREF-Title-vx.x
Author(s): E. Giorgio Due date: 30/04/13

Identification of the reviewer
Name: F. Estrella Affiliation: CERN EMI Activity/External project or Institute: NA1

Review date mm/dd/yyyy
Author(s) revision date mm/dd/yyyy
Reviewer acceptance date mm/dd/yyyy

Attach the reviewed document to the deliverable page, put here a link

General comments

18-05-2013

I've uploaded my tracked doc on twiki. The general state of english/grammar should improve.

In terms of content i'd like to see more analysis of whether the NA2 dissemination and outreach plan/its implementation were instrumental in -keeping users informed -spreading the word -attracting new users

The number of events, number of papers, etc... are good metrics, are good outcome. Can we take this further and include impact evaluation. what works, what doesn’t, where, why?

22-05-2013

You still have orphan reference section 1.4.

"4.1.1 New Elements: diversified navigation paths The four routes created in the home page land each to an area dedicated to a user category. " This comment is not for the doc, but for the website. Reviewers will click on those categories and there is still some work to be done on this.

4.2 IT Press. "The fact that it has been done at the end of the project can be justified with the choice of advertising MeDIA" I disagree. You cannot justify implementing a recommendation given 12 months ago only now at the end of EMI because of MeDIA.

6.2 Still missing reference to other videos produced (this deliverable is M19-M36. It may be worth also adding a sentence about training videos, and reference the other deliverable/s.

For Appendix A I suggest to add ref to twiki pubs for a full list of other materials.

Unless I missed it, I didn't see analysis towards -keeping users informed -spreading the word -attracting new users

24-05-13

>> 4.2 IT Press. "The fact that it has been done at the end of the project can be justified with the choice of advertising MeDIA" I disagree. You cannot justify implementing a recommendation given 12 months ago only now at the end of EMI because of MeDIA.
>
> I understand your concern, but this paragraph is about advertising, and this is the only payed advertising we did. Shall we say nothing about that ? After all, MeDIA has been launched at the end of the project, It could not have been advertised before.

The recommendation, given M26, was to advertise broadly EMI results. By writing it like this, it appears we have only done 1 advertisement and at the end. It draws the attention to this lackluster result.

Since advertising is not limited to paid advertisement (Oxford dictionary: describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance), one can argue sections 4,5,6,7 are forms of advertisements.

What I suggest is to revisit the structure. I do not propose to drop the text, just reorganize it.

>> Unless I missed it, I didn't see analysis towards
>> -keeping users informed -spreading the word -attracting new users
>
> Every section describing a channel used had a conclusion that briefly summarized the outcomes. I have now added some thoughts in the last chapter.

Can you please be more explicit on how EMI faired with the three points (-keeping users informed -spreading the word -attracting new users) for each Section (or subsection) 4, 5, 6, 7

Additional recommendations (not affecting the document content, e.g. recommendation for future work)

Detailed comments on the content

Note 1: The reviewers must list here any observation they want to track explicitly and that require interaction with the authors
Alternatively all changes must be listed in the document itself using Word change tracking features (if you use Word)
Note 2: These comments have to be explicitly addressed by the authors and the action taken must be clearly described

Page Section Observations and Replies Is Addressed?
1 xx x.y Sequence of comments and replies separated by twiki signature and date    
2          
3          
4          

Any other modification, spelling or grammatical corrections, etc must be done directly in the document using tracked changes or similar mechanisms that allows the authors to identify which correction is suggested.

Edit | Attach | Watch | Print version | History: r4 < r3 < r2 < r1 | Backlinks | Raw View | WYSIWYG | More topic actions
Topic revision: r4 - 2013-05-24 - unknown
 
    • Cern Search Icon Cern Search
    • TWiki Search Icon TWiki Search
    • Google Search Icon Google Search

    EMI All webs login

This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform Powered by PerlCopyright &© 2008-2020 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
or Ideas, requests, problems regarding TWiki? use Discourse or Send feedback