Review History


To increase transparency, PeerJ operates a system of 'optional signed reviews and history'. This takes two forms: (1) peer reviewers are encouraged, but not required, to provide their names (if they do so, then their profile page records the articles they have reviewed), and (2) authors are given the option of reproducing their entire peer review history alongside their published article (in which case the complete peer review process is provided, including revisions, rebuttal letters and editor decision letters).

New to public reviews? Learn more about optional signed reviews and how to write a better rebuttal letter.

Summary

  • The initial submission of this article was received on August 13th, 2015 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on September 25th, 2015.
  • The first revision was submitted on October 6th, 2015 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on October 15th, 2015.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· · Academic Editor

Accept

Good paper thank you for the revision

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

This is a very nice paper. However, I believe that additional research references, related to the area addressed by the paper, are needed. I understand there are not many people working in the area. Perhaps 2 or 3 papers that are obliquely related to the area could be possible. That is, that this is not a direct extension of their research, but that they work in related areas, and how the work in this paper is different.

Other than that, however, the paper is well written and both reviewers liked it.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

This paper provides a governance structure for IT-related projects, especially when the projects are ready to roll out to production. This paper is based on the author’s consulting experiences in the Department of Testing and Release Management at the Otto Group, which is headquartered in Hamburg, Germany.

My impression of the paper is that the author has done enough work to warrant a publication, especially the author does provide a methodology for rolling out projects so that the transition to new systems can be done smoothly.

However, I do have one complaint. The paper does not include a real-world case. (Maybe I missed it, I do not know.) For papers of this sort, real-world cases are important because the theory proposed by the paper can only be tested empirically, not mathematically. Hence, a successful application of the methodology is important to convince readers that the methodology is valid.

Experimental design

See previous comments.

Validity of the findings

Can only be validated by real-world cases.

Comments for the author

Please provide a real-world case of successful application of your methodology.

·

Basic reporting

The paper clearly defines a method for live deployment of a project. It does a good job of emphasizing the need for applying an exact, formal methodology as opposed to simply using best practices, so that the scientific method can be applied and and data can be used to back up our idea that the method is "better".

Experimental design

The paper demonstrates an adequate case study that applies this methodology and the ideas are well supported. Because each project is unique, it would be difficult or impossible to exactly reproduce the results. However, it could be tested on other projects to see if inclusion of cut-over requirements in the ITIL management model show more timely delivery.

Validity of the findings

The paper used good statistical methods that support the validity of the papers findings

Comments for the author

No Comment

All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.