Android Vs iOS: Digital Wellbeing in Future and the Marketing Concerns


TS Anoop

Teaching Associate, Post Graduate Diploma in Business Analytics, Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

19.11.2018

Accepted Date

19.12.2018

Published Date

31.01.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

This research study on Android Vs ios: digital wellbeing in future and the marketing concerns is aimed to highlight the digital marketing future and its marketing concerns for the Android and iOS systems and its comparison. The study used secondary sources of data collections.

Major Comments

  1. Very important part of any research study is objective. This paper is not framed with any objective it seems. There is no any objective of the study in any part of the paper. Without objective a research study will not be a complete one. So, the researcher has to add objectives of the study.
  2. Abstract is not fulfilling its purpose. Abstract should cover the complete need of the study and more number of keywords can be given. So the readers of the article can get narrative view of the entire study.
  3. There is no information on the review of related literatures. If this study is first hand study the researcher should produce valid proof or can include the reference details on the study.
  4. There is no information on the research methodology used for the study. Researcher should concentrate on this part and give the methodology of selecting this particular topic.
  5. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate. Also, mention how your results compare to (reference given to author) another study which was published very recently.
  6. Conclusion of the study is missing. It looks like incomplete study. The other readers of the paper can’t get the exact figure of result from the conclusion given in the paper. The author should write the conclusion based on the title, research findings.
  7. Even though it is a study out of secondary sources of data major findings of the study can be given. So that the readers of the paper can get clear idea about the entire analysis part of the study where there was lots of analysis report given in the study.

Minor Comments

  1. Too many information has given randomly which is not particularly meet out the need for the study. The author should eliminate some data which is not relevant to the study.
  2. There is no information on data collection, period of study, techniques used for collecting the data, footnote and findings for the study. The author should focus on the above mentioned parts which are mainly needed for a research study.
  3. Non-frequency of the contents is there which are to be given more concentrate for valuable research study.
  4. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.
  5. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research (scope for future research).

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has much strength where there was major weakness also. The very important needed information of the study like objectives of the study, limitations, research methodology used, reviews of literature, major findings and conclusion are missing. The author should include all the needed information for the study to strengthen the value of the paper.

Constructiveness of Comments

The review committee has given the constructive comments to the author /researcher.

Level of Detail of the Review

The review is fairly detailed, but the reviewer missed data inconsistence in the required field. There are major corrections to be taken place before the final review.

Substantiation of Comments

The reviewer made comments on the paper with references.

Was the Review Biased?

The study was reviewed under ‘nil’ biased basis.

Recommendation from the Reviewer

I recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned major revisions.