An Empirical Analysis on Food Subsidy in India

V Krishnakumar

Assistant Professor, PG and Research Department of Commerce, C.P.A College, Bodinayakanur, Tamil Nadu, India

Peer Review Report

Received Date


Accepted Date


Published Date



Accepted Level

Reviewer’s Comments to Authors

Major Comments

  1. Abstract is not fulfilling its purpose. Abstract should cover the complete need of the study and it should clearly give the narrative view of entire study.
  2. Detailed introduction and proper justification for statement why the particular topic has been chosen by the author (statement of the problem) should be given.
  3. Scope of the study is not properly scoping the topic of the study. All the words are incomplete and needed to reframe.
  4. There is no information on period which the study has been done and area which the study was taken. It is mandatory to include the detail of ‘period of the study’ and ‘area of the study’.
  5. None of the objectives has been discussed properly in the study. First objective says that ‘to reveal the importance of Public Distribution System and food subsidy’ but no point of important of PDS towards food subsidy was discussed in the paper.
  6. Second objective given ‘to analyse the flow of food subsidy for Public Distribution System in India’ in detail. It just highlights its contribution not analyzing the trend/flow of PDS for food subsidy.
  7. Suggestions and conclusion given is not based on the major observations derived from various source of secondary data collections. It only giving common and random suggestions which not exactly meet out the need for title of the study.
  8. There was no mention of the limitations of the study, one of which is the apparently high dropout rate.

Minor Comments

  1. Non-frequency of the contents is there which are to be given more concentrate for valuable research study.
  2. There is no information on data collection, period of study, footnote and findings for the study. The author should focus on the above mentioned parts which are mainly needed for a research study.
  3. 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.
  4. Lots of grammar error should be corrected properly. And Unnecessary wordings should be avoided.
  5. For every reference there should be a footnote in the relevant pages.
  6. Researcher can be highlight the research gap and pave the way for future research.