Template for review of a module in the MemobustHandbook

Name of the module:Overall Design
Type of module (method or theme):Theme
Initial author(s) of the module:Eva Elvers, SE
Name of reviewer:Zoltán Csereháti, HU
Date of submission:17th May 2012
REVIEW
1. What is your opinion on the contentof the module?
[Please take at least the following aspects into account: comprehensibility (also for non-specialists); balanced coverage of the topic; suitability and comprehensibility of figures, tables, and examples; up-to-date methodology; consistency with other modules. If you are not satisfied with certain aspects, please provide examples and suggestions for improvement.]
Overall, the module is very well written. It formulates clearly all the relevant concepts in a way that is easy to follow for a non-specialist. The module is well balanced with much emphasis put on the quality issues. All the other modules and especially their design-related aspects should be developed consistently with this key chapter.
Some minor suggestions for improvement:
In 2.3.5 a more detailed description of the content, topics of the design phaseneeded(concepts, population, frequency, questionnaire, frame, data collection, other process steps, organisation, etc). There is a short list in this paragraph, but it is not enough. Perhaps this might be a summary of the design part of the following topics of the handbook.
It should be clear for the reader what kind of process steps exist and how a typical survey process builds up from them. (The level of detailing depends on the content of other chapters as “Introduction” or “General Observations” which may also deal with the issue.)
2. What is your opinion on the style/form of the module?
[Please take at least the following aspects into account: lay out; length of the module; length and structure of sentences; quality of English; spelling in accordance with UK English. If you are not satisfied with certain aspects, please provide examples and suggestions for improvement.]
The layout is clear, the length is reasonable. The sentences are mostly short and easy to understand, the quality of English is very good. The spelling is almost perfect.
Some comments, suggestions related to the spelling, phrasing and writing style included in the reviewed document.
3. What is your opinion on the use of the standard template?
[Please take at least the following aspects into account: compliance with the standard template; adequate treatment of each relevant item in the template. If you are not satisfied with certain aspects, please provide examples and suggestions for improvement.]
Basically, we think that the document complies with the structure of the standard template.
We think that a Glossary (Template point 6.) would be well suited in this chapter considering its importance. It would be good to adjust the terms of other chapters to this glossary.
Template Points 3. and 4. are irrelevant in this case and also Point 5. “Decision tree of methods” is hard to manage.
Thinking about the Wiki style version of the Handbook, including some kind of flowchart or case study could enhance the quality of the chapter.
4. What is your opinion on the glossary and the list of references?
[Please take at least the following aspects into account: is the terminology in the main text in accordance with the glossary; are all relevant terms (including acronyms) explained in the glossary; are all references in the main text mentioned in the list of references, and vice versa? Please provide suggestions for corrections where they are needed.]
The list of references includes all the best, most relevant and recent works dealing with survey design. The main text refers the appropriate literature in all places needed.
However, as mentioned above, we still miss the Glossary.
Conclusion
5. What is you overall conclusion for this module?
[Please choose one of the following.]
[ ] Accept as written.
[X ] The module needs minor revisions (no new review needed).
[ ] The module needs major revisions (new reviewneeded).
[ ] Reject the module.
Remarks:
The overall quality of the module is very good.
There are only a few points where some minor improvement seems to be possible.
Room for additional comments or remarks (optional):

Template last modified on 8 July 2011