B67

DETAILED REPORT

1. Plagiarism

As pointed out by the Copy Editor, close to 12% plagiarism is present.

2. Contribution to Field

The author has failed to make an original contribution to the field and the line of argument
used by the author is similar to that of other online blogs. The suggestions given by author are
based on the approach adopted in other competition law regimes are not novel.

3. Quality of Content

The article is focused on depicting the irregularities in determination of dominance, in the

context of online entities. For doing this, the author has adequately relied on case laws and
other authorities. However, the second half of the article included the suggestions. These
suggestions are vague and need further elaboration. Instead of discussing how a specific
solution could be implemented in India, the author has merely listed out the approach
followed in multiple jurisdictions. Further, all of these suggestions lack originality. This is
followed by a brief conclusion. Thus, there is scope for more research in all these aspects.

4. Citations

As pointed out by Copy Editor, certain citations are misleading. These need to be corrected.

5. Verdict – Accept with change

6. References

https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ex-ante-regulation-digital-markets-india/.

https://amity.edu/UserFiles/aibs/8ae1Article-IX%20(Page%2055-61).pdf.