Effect of Stress Outcomes on Job Performance of Women Doctors
H D Sadhanandan
Assistant Professor, Department of Commerce, PSG College of Arts & Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Associate Professor, Department of Management Sciences, PSG College of Arts & Science, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India
Peer Review Report
Reviewer’s Comments to Authors
This research on effect of stress outcomes on job performance of women doctors made an attempt to analyse the stress factors and its outcome results on the job performance of women doctors. Both primary and secondary sources of data collections were used. Primary data were collected for the study from 231 women doctors working at various government hospitals and private hospitals in Coimbatore through a structured questionnaire.
- The 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.
- There is no information on period of study and area of the study. There is particular mentioning of demographic detail of the study like company name, zone name or district of the study area. The author should focus on the above mentioned parts which are mainly needed for a research study.
- 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.
- 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 minor weakness also. The very important needed information of the study like period of the study, limitations, major findings and limitations of the study 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 minor 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 minor revisions.