Thantai Periyar – Fighter for Social Justice
A Jesintha Vilveena
Associate Professor in History, Jayaraj Annapackiam College for Women (Autonomous), Periyakulam, Theni, Tamil Nadu, India
Peer Review Report
Reviewer’s Comments to Authors
This historical study of ‘Thanthai Periyar’ who was the fighter for social justice aimed to highlight the auspicious information about the Thanthai Periyar and his fighting movement for the social justice during his personal and political life. It gives complete information about Thanthai Periyar from his birth to death. It is an historical study based on secondary sources of data collections.
- Abstract is not fulfilling its purpose. Abstract should cover the complete need of the study and more number of keywords can be given. So the readers of the article can get narrative view of the entire study.
- 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.
- There is no information on the review of related literatures. If this study is first hand study the researcher should produce valid proof or can include the reference details on the study.
- Conclusion of the study is not giving the information about what the author has realized or identified from the details given above. Title is not fulfilling its requirement without the proper conclusion of the study.
- 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 nor relevant to the study.
- Non-frequency of the contents is there which are to be given more concentrate for valuable research study.
- Narrative points about the study can be given instead of giving clumsy information in the paper. It will create easy understanding to the readers.
Associate Editor’s Critique
The study has much strength where there was minor weakness also. The very important needed information of the study like detailed abstract, objectives of the study and frequency of data 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.