Feedback: What needs to be improved and changed GENERAL COMMENTS ON DISSERTATION OVERALL AND RECONCILIATION OF 1ST and 2ND MARKERS There are various repetitions that do not give any value to the text. Moreover, the student refers to the dissertation sometimes as research, others as study or paper, report etc. and presents chapter summaries both in the start and in the end of the chapters confusing the reader. The effort made by the student is significant and contains all the necessary material. But, the presentation, the structure and the poor commenting and justification lead the reviewer to the conclusion that it can pass but is far from getting a very good degree. A dissertation with lots of grammar/syntax mistakes, lack of consistency in the reference list, minor errors in the text citations, lots of outdated resources and indeed in the LR, inconsistencies in the executive summary, the ToC, and the presented data analysis. The LR is not thoroughly presented, the literature gap is not properly addressed, Hs are not connected to RQs, the research methodology section is messy, the data analysis section is demonstrated without prior justification of tools in the third section, and conclusion is waffling without highlighting necessary. The overall cohesion is at a rather marginally satisfactory level. Hence a weak pass. First Marker ——————- INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The introduction part is sufficiently structured and organized. Context and rationale stated but could be clearer and more explicit in indicating relevance to the research field. This would have helped to determine the set up as a worthwhile investigative research topic. key terms mostly explained; key issues and overall aim of the project mostly well-indicated; research objectives mostly clearly stated and indicating some degree of depth of analysis to be undertaken. There are a few spelling mistakes and some references missing to the claims and statements made. LITERATURE REVIEW Although the bibliography reference is in general correct, there are some inconsistencies. There are several claims that are missing references. The gaps are poorly presented and there is no justification on how they can be addressed or why they are not addressed by this thesis (in other words the impact of those gaps within the context of this research that gave raise to do this study so they could be addressed is missing). The writing is also very confusing especially in Section . In general, so-what element as well as a critical analysis is missing. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The chapter contains all the information required but it is presented in a very confusing and very poorly structured way. Assumptions like “the sample…” (consisting of only 30 questionnaires) “… is representative of the whole population” are made without any proper description. Limited awareness of constraints and limitations when designing investigation; limited retrospective evaluation. Also, somehow inaccurate summary of the chapter, in that it does not show any of the listed items being said instead it should have mentioned that those listed points will be used. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS The student presents the outcome of the questionnaire but sometimes refers to the results with numbers and some other with text which is confusing. The content is very rich which indicates the significant effort done by the student. Also, the student accepts or rejects the null hypothesis without calculating the appropriate value and without stating on how such a decision is made. The commenting of the results is also not very clear to the reviewer. It is very difficult to identify if the hypotheses are finally accepted or rejected and why. The proper value p has not been calculated and no justification is made on why it is not used. Same applies to all relevant text for all survey questions. Furthermore, the text describes what is visible from the charts instead of drawing conclusions and revealing additional information as may be interpreted by the student Descriptive statuses are OK but the aim or the purpose is missing. Should have specified what will all that help to identify and what does p factor significance tell within the context of this research? incorrect inline text reference to tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in sections , and and so on CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter contains all the necessary information presented in a structured way although it could have been richer in context. PRESENTATION, STRUCTURE, AND WRITING A lot of typos, grammar, syntax, and presentation errors. It is clear that the work presented has not been thoroughly checked and there are also unnecessary repetitions. The way of writing is very confusing and the student failed to create a clear structure to help the reader. incorrect inline text reference to tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 in sections , and and so on ? Second Marker: ————— INTRODUCTION, CONTEXT, RESEARCH OBJECTIVES The objectives are addressed in an unclear way, although there has been attempted to connect them to the RQs. The background and research rationale are weak and further content is needed, and the Hs are dryly added to the body text. LITERATURE REVIEW MARKS The literature gap is not addressed, the inclusion criteria are not met, a few resources are outdated, and the sections are neither representative in number nor analytical with comparisons. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY MARKS ll sections are disordered, and main information is missing regardless of the order (see research approach, target population, sampling techniques, validity and reliability, scope and limitations). Also, data collection tools and analysis tools are not clearly addressed, and there hasn´t been any appendix to provide the reader with the survey questions. RESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF EMPIRICAL FINDINGS Each survey question is analysed individually, and cohesiveness is a low level. The tables are ineffectively numbered and added to the body text, Hs are not tested but just presented to the reader without proper justification for their rejection or acceptance, the evaluation o findings is not applicable, and there has been questions occurred after seeing the different analysis methods regarding the student´s trustfulness. I mean, it is interesting to know the reasons for not explaining the tools and methods in the respective section (section 3) before starting with section 4. CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Repeated parts and not revisited RQs, and recommendations are not just the continuation of the conclusion. See also my in-text comments PRESENTATION, STRUCTURE, AND WRITING The dissertation lacks proofreading, consistency in the reference list, the ToC is rumpled, cohesiveness is not applied to all sections, and unfinished sentences or headlines give the impression of a rather hasty way of preparation before the final submission. Specific Comments throughout pages 1 to 69: Need to address the changes as per comment PAGE 1 Comment 1 of banking? investments? insurance? Comment 2 regarding what? workforce performance? firm productivity? firm sustainability? ……… Comment 3 what is the header for? Comment 4 the research approach is not addressed Comment 5 lowercase Comment 6 … and then the text from the selected literature is analysed using… Comment 7 background and context Comment 8 research rationale Comment 9 research aim and objectives Comment 10 research questions and hypotheses Comment 11 literature gap? Comment 12 approach and design Comment 13 target population, sampling technique, and sample size Comment 14 data collection Comment 15 research design Comment 16 validity and reliability? Comment 17 where is your evaluation chapter? Comment 18 limitations and future scope? Comment 19 on new page Comment 20 on a new page Comment 21 no need to repeat the number Strikethrough. Strikethrough. Comment 24 according to whom? Need references for these claims. They are known in general but still in academia we need references for all claims and statements Comment 25 oudated resource Strikethrough. Comment 27 may be use of “others” is better Comment 28 missing source of information PAGE 11 PAGE 12 Comment 29 would have been interesting to mention how they use IoT to limit/eliminate cybercrime. Comment 30 should have distinguish what is financial and what is stock markets and why latter is not a subset of the former. Comment 31 of the whole cybercrime? Comment 32 do you mean CEO and Corporate Chairman and president? Comment 33 BT chairman??? Comment 34 outdated resource Comment 35 outdated reference Comment 36 what are they (should say internet based applications) Comment 37 what are they? should have listed here with references to existing literature Comment 38 where? globally? Comment 39 mention it to the LR gap and do not forget to provide references, otherwise, it is insufficient Comment 40 again should have listed according to what literatures(s) this gap has been identified Strikethrough. Comment 42 ?? Comment 43 which one Comment 44 who are they, a few references PAGE 13 Comment 45 the aim is the result of your own hypothesis – also, rephrase Comment 46 no comment Comment 47 rephrase Comment 48 rephrase! RQs should not be answered with yes/no Comment 49 rephrase Strikethrough. Comment 51 rephrase RQ2 specify new technologies Comment 52 each Hs should be explained and connect to the RQs Comment 53 rephrase Comment 54 full stop PAGE 14 spelling Comment 59 methods yes, methodologies rather not Comment 60 .. methodologies, which discusses… Strikethrough. Comment 62 pay attention to grammar tenses, please Comment 63 proofreading is missing PAGE 15 ? Comment 64 no need for repeating the number Strikethrough. Comment 66 ?? Comment 67 I hope you mean in the gap based on the existing literature Comment 68 create one sentence, do not repeat, proofread please Comment 69 needs reference to literature PAGE 16 Comment 70 the subsection is incomplete, please explain further one of the major concepts of your dissertation by comparing results from related studies in depth Comment 71 this sentence is unclear Comment 72 the section needs analysis. the LR is not just the dictionary for definitions Comment 73 ref? Comment 74 add content, please! relate the concept to your topic! Comment 75 compared to what? the whole is missing Comment 76 cite them Comment 77 marginally updated for such a topic, don ?t you think? Comment 78 why didn ?t you go into a deeper analysis? this is not an RP, but your dissertation! Comment 79 revise citation Comment 80 incorrect style Comment 81 revise citation Comment 82 stop repeating this phrase all over around Strikethrough. PAGE 20 PAGE 21 Comment 84 UK or EU? or you are referring to the continent? Comment 85 PLEASE UPDATE YOUR INFO ABOUT THE ACT Comment 86 comma after the year and not the firm Comment 87 where is it? Strikethrough. Comment 89 Upgrade of Comment 90 what is this figure? how is it related to your dissertation? Comment 91 it doesn ?t make sense, please review your sayings and correct Comment 92 oh really where are they? PAGE 22 Comment 93 which ones? Comment 94 which ones? Comment 95 should have looked at who did what and what is missing in their work that will be addressed in your research PAGE 23 PAGE 24 Comment 96 what are they? should have listed Comment 97 you did not show according to which literature Comment 98 again, according to which literature, research? Comment 99 you should have also said what is the impact of those gaps within the context of your research that gave raise to do your study so you could address those gaps Comment 100 I don ?t see the purpose of the summary when the literature gap is wholly missing Strikethrough. Comment 102 which report? Comment 103 no, it is about the research methodology and not the theoretical framework Comment 104 Figure Comment 105 which figure? Do you mean in another section? it should have been added here Comment 106 Research approach, philosophy, and design go together ! Comment 107 cite it after explaining the approach PAGE 25 rephrase Comment 111 why are you repeating it? Comment 112 rephrase Comment 113 you could have used Saunder ?s onion to clarify the section ?s methodological concepts Comment 114 is a messy section Comment 108 mixed? qualitative? quantitative? what? Comment 109 did you employ a survey? what was the design? Comment 110 why hints of the target population and sample size here? what about the sampling technique? in any case, you are not addressing properly Comment 115 bit of a repeat from previous section!!! Comment 116 how many? Comment 117 I hope how they are selected is listed in the ethics section Comment 118 Why a sample of 30 questionnaires is representative of the whole population? PAGE 26 ?? Comment 119 which ones? Comment 120 How?? Comment 121 used Comment 122 repeated information, or style of writing is very confusing Comment 123 how did you find out the participants who were victims of a cyber attack? Comment 124 stop repeating that you used secondary data and create a list of all sources All, any sampling technique disconnected from the target population is irrelevant and meaningless Comment 125 where is the data collection tools section? embedded somewhere else? Comment 126 please, you need to have justified your target population – this is such a shame Comment 127 who are they? Am I included? Comment 128 who drew them? based on which data? Comment 129 has misleading content Comment 130 HOW DID YOU ANALYZE YOUR DATA? Comment 131 how? PAGE 28 Comment 132 what about the choice of participants? anything to have been considered? Comment 133 where?how? Comment 134 last paragraph is about repetitions Comment 135 A statement is missing about what will happen to the data after the end of this dissertation would have been appropriate Comment 136 was that supposed to be mentioned? this is fundamental anyhow in research studies Comment 137 In accurate summary. you did not show any of this in this chapter, you may have mentioned that you will use them Comment 138 is pointless when section are incomplete and misleading PAGE 29 Strikethrough. Comment 140 pilot study? how many questions? Comment 141 why these 30`? Comment 142 please, review the course ?s reading resources on how we compose sections in a master ?s dissertation. Why info is all over around the sections? and rather insufficient? Comment 143 The proper value p has not been calculated and no justification is made on why it is not used. Same applies to all relevant text for all survey questions. Also the text describes what is visible from the charts instead of drawing conclusions and revealing additional information as may be interpreted by the student Comment 144 which countries? Comment 145 which ones? Comment 146 spelling Comment 147 this is not clear in Figure 2 Comment 148 RQs are no answered in one survey question Comment 149 some times numbers are presented with arithmetic values and some other times with text. No consistency.. Also why say 17 here and not use percentage (%) from the graph Comment 150 the analysis is superficial since no research tool has been employed for the purpose of it Comment 151 Again, the text describes what is visible from the tables instead of drawing conclusions and revealing additional information as may be interpreted by the student Comment 152 OK the aim or the purpose is missing. Should have specified what will that help to identify Comment 153 reference? Comment 154 table 2 should have been in one page Comment 155 What are these numbers? I am trying to make the connection. Which tool was used? Frequency? Strikethrough. Comment 157 the form? Comment 158 reference Comment 159 and what does it tell you within the context of your research? Comment 160 6 Comment 161 where is it? Comment 162 and the meaning of this within the context of your research? PAGE 48 6? PAGE 49 7? Comment 165 are you sure you created this table for the purpose of this dissertation? PAGE 50 PAGE 51 PAGE 52 Comment 163 Comment 164 Comment 166 what does it mean for your dissertation? Comment 167 why haven ?t you mentioned anything in the third section? how all these methods pop up suddenly? I am just asking myself. Comment 168 8 Comment 169 9 Comment 170 where is the figure? PAGE 55 10 Comment 171 evaluation of findings? doesn ?t exist? Comment 172 10 Comment 173 in hypotheses testing for employing constructs, a null hypothesis is needed together with the alternative one. Why did you mix Hs with RQs? Also, your table is at least confusing with all references to other figures. Moreover, which test was employed? Comment 174 among which? Comment 175 add source! copyright issues PAGE 58 Comment 176 the analysis of secondary data is insufficient. the interconnections with the primary data are not based on evidence PAGE 59 outdated Comment 178 revise citation PAGE 60 Comment 177 Comment 179 avoid exaggerations Comment 180 what is it? Comment 181 what is it? PAGE 61 Comment 182 make transitions smoother Comment 183 computer system?? Comment 184 connection is weak PAGE 62 Comment 185 which interview??? Comment 186 gaps or limitations? and why here? Comment 187 you haven ?t identified any Comment 188 dissertation PAGE 63 PAGE 64 revise Comment 192 revise Comment 193 revise Comment 194 revise PAGE 65 revise Comment 189 recommendations do not communicate effectively with the conclusion and basically they refer to nothing new Comment 190 reference list Comment 191 Comment 195 Comment 196 revise Comment 197 revise Comment 198 revise Comment 199 revise PAGE 66 ? Comment 202 ? PAGE 67 revise Comment 204 revise Comment 205 ? Comment 206 revise Comment 200 why twice? Comment 201 Comment 203 Comment 207 ?? PAGE 68 revise
