Research Guidelines on Big Data and Data Analytics: A Survey


B Vaishnavi

Research Student, Government Arts College, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, India

V Uma

Assistant Professor, Government Arts College, Thiruvannamalai, Tamil Nadu, India

C Sunitha Ram

Assistant Professor, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Viswa Mahavidyalaya University, Kanchipuram, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

01.11.2018

Accepted Date

03.01.2019

Published Date

30.01.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

This paper on research guidelines on big data and data analytics is an empirical study which framed to highlight the research usage of ‘Big Data’ and ‘Data Analytics’. This study is completely based on 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 of the study is not fulfilling its purpose. Abstract should give a narrative view of entire study. The information given in the abstract in general not particularly focusing on the reason why the research has been done, what was the result of its findings is not given. So, the author should concentrate on reframing the abstract as per its requirement.
  3. In the entire content there is a symbol [number] for reference note which is not exactly meeting out the references given in the end of the study. The author can give the related references alone or should give reference detail wherever the symbol is coming.
  4. The review of related literature can be changed as per its rules. There are lots of clumsy information and reference quotes which are not completely need for the study.
  5. Unnecessary information which is not relating to the title of the study is given in the paper. Researcher should restructure the paper with needed contents.
  6. Conclusion of the study is not a complete one. It will create diverse thinking about the entire 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. 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.

Minor Comments

  1. Too many information has given randomly which is not particularly need for the study. The author should eliminate some data which is nor 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. For each reference and the reviews of literature the researcher can add footnote in the concerned page.
  4. Lots of grammatical error and non-frequency of the contents is there which are to be given more concentrate for valuable research study.

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has several strengths where there was some major weakness also. The very important needed information of the study like objectives of the study, research methodology used and findings 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.