Public Management Review
This report also has some flow/formatting issues. There is a clear title at the top of the first page and then the apparent abstract (it is not labeled as such) starts on the bottom of that same page and spills onto the second. The abstract is in single space and then there is the introduction directly below the abstract and there is an abrupt shift to double-spaced format. The disjointed citation and formatting continues with the introduction taking up the entire first page except for the very top and bottom with the only citation to be found coming at the bottom with three citations slammed together. Unless those three sources all said the same exact thing as it pertains to what is in that first paragraph, that is not remotely close to being scholarly citation. it's not plagiarism but it's not neat, either. The apparent title to the section that starts on page 3 appears at the bottom of page 2…another paper that was clearly not complete as it should have been before submitting for review.
Things do not get much better on the next page with there being clear mistakes in capitalization and punctuation on the third page alone, such as the word "for" on the sixth line of the third page. There is no clear citation period happening with some citations being APA-ish while others are like APA b ut miss the comma. The words and sentences used are not overly complex but it's fairly obvious the person who wrote this did not speak it out loud and do a final review because there are some glaring flow and word choice issues early and often.
Level 5 Leadership Review
There are some heading/format issues with this work but it gets off to a great...
One major exception to this is the use of questions throughout the body which should really not be occurring except in a quote fashion and that is not how they are used. The middle paragraph on the fourth page is a good example of this.
There is a use of quotes for buzz words and phrases but the use of the quotes is not overbearing or done to excess so that is a definite touch. When jargon or lingo is used from an article or from an industry, it is identified as such. The suggestions for future research near the end of the report is also a good touch and seems to be missing from a lot of reports. The suggestions made are actually quite good in the eyes of the person doing this response.
Citations for the research done are littered throughout the paper and are assigned to the sentence or statement from which the citation came from so that is a definite plus for the author of this response. The author also cites page numbers and mixes up the citation styles based on the structure of the sentence so the author was quite good at tying each idea and concept to the idea being presented.
Like the other papers reviewed, this report just needs a little more polish with the majority of the focus limited to the citation style being used and the headings used because everything else in the report was good to great in terms of quality and attention to detail. The overarching problem is that the author of this response cannot look at this report and figure out exactly what citation style the author was shooting for but it seems to be APA. However, the headings and page number placement (or lack thereof) is clearly not APA style.
