A Study on Women Entrepreneurship in Rural Tamil Nadu With Special Reference to Vellore District

P Chennakrishnan

Assistant Professor and NSS Programme Officer, Department of Economics, Thiruvalluvar University, Serkkadu, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date


Accepted Date


Published Date



Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Major Comments

  1. Abstract is not fulfilling its purpose. Abstract should cover the complete need of the study and number of keywords can be given. So the readers of the article can get narrative view of the entire study.
  2. There is no need of mentioning the fifteenth women’s day celebration of UN in abstract part. If the author has any intention to mention that point in the abstract it is important to  give complete information on why that particular point has been mentioned in the abstract part.
  3. There is a word ‘provincial business enterprise’. The author is advised to clear why that particular word has been used in the paper since it is being confusing word in the paper.
  4. Instead of mentioning ‘ladies’  the author can use ‘women’ in common for entire paper.
  5. In introduction part there is a para which started with issues, challenges and problems…. Where the paragraph is not ended completely. Author should focus and reframe the content/omit the paragraph to avoid confusion.
  6. In the first figure there is no need of giving diagrammatic presentation for age column.
  7. There is no any analytical information for proving hypothesis given in the paper. It is important to add information for proving null hypothesis which is stated in the paper or remove the hypothesis part given.
  8. There is no clear information on the period of the study where only one table of analysis stating that information from 2010. The author is strongly advised to clear the period which the current study has been done.
  9. 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.
  10. Conclusion of the study is not a complete one. It is not clearly concluded out of findings and observations of the entire study. Author should rewrite the conclusion which based on the major findings of the study.

Minor Comments

  1. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate.
  2. Author is recommended to highlight the research gap of present study and create some ways for for future study by giving scope for future research.
  3. Introduction part of the study is not fulfilling its part. Detailed introduction regarding the title can be given.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Non-frequency of the contents is there which are to be given more concentrate for valuable research study.
  7. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.