Online Shopping Attitude Among the Youth: A Study on Alagappa University Students in Karaikudi, Sivaganga District


A Muthupriya

Assistant Professor, KG College of Arts and Science College, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

03.05.2019

Accepted Date

27.06.2019

Published Date

01.07.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Major Comments

  1. In the first review given in the review of literature is starting with the word ‘in his study of ….’ And for the following review there is the word ‘my study found…’. But there was no any information on the author of that review collected and the title even. Author is strongly advised to add the review details properly.
  2. The objectives of the study start with ‘to understand…’ but the objectives given are analytical based so it should start by using the words like to study, to analyse, etc.
  3. There is no information on period which the study has been done. It is an important factor to be added in any research study.
  4. Conclusion given in the study is not concluding the title properly. It is not drawn out from the major findings of the study. And it gives random information which not exactly matching with the current study. Author is strongly advised to reword/reframe the conclusion given in the study.
  5. References given in the bibliography part of the study is not given as footnote reference in anywhere of the study. The author is advised to add the footnote reference detail/reference number in the study.
  6. There is no detail on the area of the study. The author can add some descriptive detail about the area of the study.
  7. In the analysis part there is a information stating that only 90.5% of the respondents are do shop online where rest of the respondents are not. The study is only the online shoppers. So the total final sample population for the study should be 185 (90.5% of 200 respondents) and study result will be for 185 only. But the author has given the analytical result of total 200 respondents where 9.5% of those respondents are not using online shopping. Author needs to clarify this detail of difference.

Minor Comments

  1. Non-frequency of the contents is there which are to be given more concentrate for valuable research study.
  2. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.
  3. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research.