Women, Water & Well-Being: A Case Study of ‘Kuttadampadam’ in Palakkad, Kerala

V Shinju

Assistant Professor, Department of Sociology, Vimala College, Thrissur, Kerala, India.

Aswathi Prasad

Christ University, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date


Accepted Date


Published Date



Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Major Comments

  1. There is no information on period which the study has been done. It is important to add period of the study in the paper.
  2. Focused number of sample respondents as per total of table given is 19 only. But the study are may have more number of women to take as respondents. Does the author can draw exact result with only 19 respondents? It is important to clear this point of confusion and should mention the methodology adopted for selecting sample size out of total population in the study area.
  3. Only the major findings have given where there is no single analysis has been carried out. The author should add at least very important analysis in the paper instead of giving their socio-demographic details. Because giving major findings without any proof of analysis will not be trustable in the eyes of readers.
  4. The 2ndand 3rd objectives (to understand the best practices seen among women in water conservation and to find out whether women are ambassadors/environmentalists in the context of water preservation or not) has not analyzed/discussed clearly in the paper. When the objectives listed in a research study it is important to analyse such objectives in the paper.
  5. Only the socio-demographic detail of the study has been given in the paper. There is no information on what method (primary/secondary/both) of data collection been used in the study? It is important to add the source of collecting information and the method used to collect.
  6. Some statistical information have been discussed in the ‘scarcity and problems of water and management’ but there is also no source of data has been highlighted. It is important to mention such footnote references/numbers/source of collecting data.
  7. 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.

Minor Comments

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Non-frequency of the contents is there which are to be given more concentrate for valuable research study.
  4. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate.
  5. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research.
  6. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.