Conversion of Waste Plastic Materials into Usable Resources


J Gowtham Narayanan

Department of Applied Research, Gandhigram University, Gandhigram, Dindigul, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

04.01.2019

Accepted Date

07.01.2019

Published Date

30.01.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Current research paper is analyses how the waste plastic materials can be convert into the usable resources effectively. Descriptive analysis has been done with a view to highlight the manufacturing process, timeline and causes of plastic materials in day-to-day life.

Major Comments

  1. The research paper is not fulfilling the aim of the paper. The paper entitled ‘the conversion of waste plastic materials into usable resources’ where there was no any single information about the reusable process of waste plastic materials. It simply giving the information on what is plastic? Time line of plastic, manufacturing process of plastic, cause and effects of plastic which is not needed for the completion of this present research study. So the author is strongly advised to change the content as per the requirement of the topic or topic can be changed as per the contents of the paper.
  2. Abstract is not fulfilling its purpose. Abstract will be given for the short view of entire study and it 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.

Minor Comments

  1. Data are given randomly which is not prepared under the rules of a research paper. So, the author should restructure the paper as per the requirement of a publication.
  2. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research (scope for future research).
  3. Unnecessary wordings should be avoided.
  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.

Associate Editor’s Critique

The study has some strength where there was major weakness also. There is a very big mistake the mismatch of title and the contents given. The very important needed information of the study like objectives of the study, methodology used and reviews of literature 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 strongly recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned major revisions.