Flood Relief Measures Under Vijayanagara Kings with Special Reference to Vazhuvur Temple Inscriptions - A Study


R Udaiachandran

Assistant Professor, Department of History, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

06.01.2019

Accepted Date

07.01.2019

Published Date

30.01.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

This is a historical research analysis on flood relief measures taken by Vijayanagara Kings particularly in the Vazhuvur temple inscriptions. It tried to highlight the Kingdom of Vijanagara Kings and their contribution for the well-being of temple inscriptions particularly in Vazhuvur Temple.

Major Comments

  1. Abstract is missing. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Conclusion of the study is missing. Where there was an introduction there should be a conclusion. The author should conclude the paper based on the study done by them.

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. The very important needed information of the study like introduction, objectives of the study, methodology used, reviews of literature and conclusion 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.