Women Empowerment through Self Help Group in Velappanadaroor at Sankarankovil Taluk

T Karthika

M.Phil scholar (Commerce), Kamarajar Government Arts College, Surandai, Thirunellveli, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date


Accepted Date


Published Date



Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Major Comments

  1. First and second research objectives given (to find out the working condition of the members of the self- help groups and to study the problem faced by women self- help groups) has not studied anywhere of the paper. It is advised to the author to add some analytical or descriptive detail regarding those two objectives.
  2. It is mentioned in the conclusion part that ‘it is important to address the emerging issues of women in SHG…’ but none of issues have been discussed in the paper. It is important to highlight the issues of women in SHG in Velappanadaroor at Sankarankovil taluk for empowerment.
  3. Some details regarding the study area and why the author has chosen that area of study can be given to strengthen the value of the paper.
  4. The statement given in the statement of the problem (the present study is focused to examine the performance of women development programme in terms of Self Help Groups and to analyze the extent of empowerment of women through Self Help Groups in Velappanadaroor at Sankarankovil taluk) has not properly analysed in the paper. The discussion has made apart from the main purpose of the study. So, the author needed to concentrate on this missed part of the study.
  5. The option given ‘any other’ does not given any meaningful factor. Author needs to clarify what that option is meaning for.
  6. All the suggestions given are a common one which not based on the major findings of the study. It is recommended to the author to add some more suggestions which based on the major findings from the study.
  7. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages for future reference purpose.

Minor Comments

  1. Sentences for major findings are not correctly framed. It is expected to the author to reword the sentences.
  2. More number of reviews can be given where the author have gained knowledge through various secondary sources.
  3. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate.
  4. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research.