Labours Troubles and Congress Party in Tamil Nadu (1900- 1947)


T Balasubramaninan

Karaikudi, Sivagangai District, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date

11.12.2018

Accepted Date

05.01.2019

Published Date

30.01.2019

Plagiarism

Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

This study has been conducted with a view to give the details on labours’ troubles and Congress Party in Tamil Nadu during 1900 - 1947. It is a descriptive analysis where the secondary sources of data collections was used for the study.

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 is another main part of any research study. The paper is missing the abstract which will give a narrative view about the entire study, analysis, findings and etc. So, the author of the paper should include an abstract which will give the summarized content of whole study and keywords of the study.
  3. 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.
  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. 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.

Minor Comments

  1. Clumsy of information in the introduction part of the study. Author should change according to its requirements.
  2. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way 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 nor relevant to the study.
  5. There is no information on data collection, 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 of Reviewer A

The study has some strength where there was major weakness also. The very important needed information of the study like objectives of the study, abstract of the study, research 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 recommend that, this paper be accepted after the above mentioned major revisions.