An Assessment on Quality of Life and Happiness Indices of Project Affected People in Indian Coalfields
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I feel happy to review this manuscript titled as "An assessment on quality of life and happiness indices of project affected people in Indian coalfields." There are several changes are required in the manuscript. I hope authors will address all the changes in the revised manuscript.
1. The introduction section should be revised, there are only one citation in first two paragraphs of introduction. Moreover, authors have wrongly cited the references (authors name) and some references are in brackets.
2. Author should clearly discuss the research gap in the introduction section.
3. There is no research questions or objectives are stated in the manuscript.
4. There are so many typo mistakes in the whole manuscript.
5. I suggest authors to add some more explanation in the 2.1.1. Job opportunity section.
6. The methodology section is nicely elaborated. But it has several typo mistakes.
7. I suggest authors to report standardized regression weight in Table 5.
8. I suggest authors to report the discriminant validity analysis in the revised manuscript.
9. Why the R2 values are too low, I suggest authors to report R2 values in the revised manuscript with suitable justification.
10. Does authors have performed common method bias test on data?
11. Hair et al. citations are usually applied when the measurement or structural model are tested through Smart-PLS software. I suggest authors to cite other researcher citations such as Hu and Bentler, Preacher and Hayes Etc.
12. I suggest authors to explain more regarding the hypotheses relationships either it is accepted or rejected in the manuscript text.
13. There are many hypotheses are rejected I suggest authors to provide some suitable reason in the discussion section.
14. There is no theoretical implication for this research ?
15. There is no limitations and future research directions are properly elaborated in the manuscript.
16. Authors did not follow the authorship guideline before submit the manuscript. There are so many errors in the whole manuscript.
17. Authors have cited more than 160 references in the manuscript. I suggest authors to make it short.
Good Luck
There are several typo errors and mistakes in the whole manuscript. I suggest authors to proofread whole manuscript through native speaker/editor before submitting the revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for your review made about our paper wherein you kindly recommended for its publication "as it is"; the paper is attached herewith for your kind apprising
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for asking me to review this exciting paper. I compliment the authors on exploring such an important topic and hope to read more work in this area.
After critically reviewing the article. I think this manuscript has a lot of potential and definitely covers an exciting area in research and practice.
1. The contribution of your study is missing in the introduction section. Explain it at the end of the introduction.
2. Provide practical and theoretical contributions and linked them to the previous research and discussed them thoroughly.
3. What has been done previously and what do you want to do in this study? The problem statement and research gap are missing in the introduction section.
4. Explain your methodology part a bit more.
Good luck to the authors
N/A
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I have satisfied with the revision.
Good Luck
There are still some typo errors are there in the whole manuscript. I hope it will be addressed in the English editing stage.
