An Empirical Study of Women Prisoners in Central Jail in Srinagar

Taahaa Khan

Student, Centre for Gender Studies, Amity University, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Yasmeen Ashai

Principal, Government Amar Singh College, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Shimayil Wani

Assistant Professor, J & K Higher Education Department, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date


Accepted Date


Published Date



Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Current empirical study was conducted with an aim to analyze the situation of women prisoners in the central jail in Kashmir and tries to explore the reasons behind the crime committed by these women. The researchers have done composed of survey interviews, carried out in the central jail in Srinagar in June 2016. There were 20 survey respondents (women offenders) in the age group of 16–35. Respondents were chosen on the basis of purposive sampling selection strategy and the interviews lasted for an hour to 1.5 hours. The study concerned a qualitative, cross-sectional design in which views of the women offenders about their lived experience, future prospects, and impediments were elicited and compared.  

Major Comments

  1. There was no justification on selecting the research area. The author can give the justification why the study particularly taken in the Srinagar Central Jail.
  2. 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.
  3. There is no information on the review of related literatures and references. 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 methodology used for selecting the sample population for the study. Researcher should concentrate on this part and give the methodology of selecting the samples and its technique.

Minor Comments

  1. Lots of information in the part of introduction is availing where the detail regarding the study area and the related information is less.
  2. The author should give the research gap and raise options available for future research.
  3. Suggestions are commonly provided. Researcher should match the suggestions from out of findings of the 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 references, research gap and road on future research. 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.