1

PEER REVIEW

Title: Stakeholders’ Perception of the Solid Waste Management Program in an Academic

Community: A Basis for Its Institutionalization (University of Rizal System)

Strengths
 The topic is relevant and timely considering the current problems on environment are
related to improper waste disposal.
 There are several related literatures cited to support the purpose of the study.
 The need to conduct the study was established.

Title Page and Other APA Formats

 The title covers the key concepts in the study but can still be improved to make it sound
more interesting.
 Be consistent with the system of documentation you are using. Since you used author date
citation in your body, your reference list should also follow the same format.

Abstract
 The problem and purpose of the study were explained clearly. However, the methodology
used was not discussed.
 There is no list of keywords after the abstract.

Introduction
 Although the introduction was able to establish the need to conduct the study, there is a
need to strengthen it.
 The objectives are not discussed clearly. Make sure the objectives are SMART or TOMAS.
 Follow the IMRD format. The objectives, conceptual and the related literature could already
be integrated in the introduction part rather than have separate sections for them.
 The related literature section should be shortened. It could be collapsed and integrated in the
introduction section. Make sure the weaving of ideas is coherent and cogent.
 Conceptual paradigm needs to be improved to illustrate the variables or the flow of the
study.

Materials and Methods

 The actual number of respondents was not mentioned in the study. There was a mention of
the categories of respondents such as parents, faculty, staff, households and students but the
number representing the population was not indicated.
 The stakeholders you are referring to in the study were not explained clearly.
 Since it is a survey type, statistical treatments used should be mentioned since it is crucial in
the interpretation of data.
 The methodologies employed to come up with the credible data was not discussed in detail.
There is a need to clearly discuss the methodology to show how scientific it was done
considering it is a survey type.
 Since it is only a survey type, a correlation method or a test of significance or differences in
the responses could be done to elevate your data into higher form. Demographic profile
could also be used as a variable in the study.
 2

 The methodology should be improved to answer the problem of the study adequately and to
ensure reliability and validity. Triangulation of methods could have made it more
interesting.

Results and Discussion

 There was no discussion on the demographic profile of your respondents. Please include it
since it could establish the credibility of your respondents.
 Review the interval or range of your weighted mean in the legend. There seems to be a
problem in the range or interval you used.
 Analyze the data in the tables and try to get implications from the findings so that it would
be in-depth.
 Review statement no. 1 in Table 1. What about RA 9003? The statement might have been
deleted. Review your statements in this table as some items do not seem to measure
perception about the SWM program. You have to be clear about what perception means in
your study and how you measured it. The statements seem not enough to adequately
measure perception on SWM.
 The N values in your Table 2 are not indicated. Observe parallelism in the construction of the
questions/items.
 In Table 3, you have to distinguish between readiness and willingness. What are you really
trying to find out? Their readiness or willingness? It would be better if you have separated
these variables since it would be confusing as to what you are really trying to measure here.
Another confusing part is Question No. 2 which asked about awareness. Is it another
variable? This should not be included in the table. Review your statements as some of them
do not actually measure willingness or readiness. Or you have to recast your title so it would
fit your data. It’s difficult to measure two variables in one table.
 Since you have conducted a survey among different groups of respondents, their responses
could be compared. The demographic characteristics could also be correlated to their
perception.
 You have to connect the data you gathered to the theories or literatures you have reviewed
so they sound more credible.
 The strategies that you have identified in your study seem not to be borne by your study.
What are your bases for coming up with these strategies when your findings only discussed
about perception, readiness or willingness? If there is, it should be indicated clearly.
 Try to improve the presentation of your tables. As much as possible, a table should appear
on one page.
 Do you think your questionnaire gave you reliable data? I think there is a need to also
evaluate your instrument. The data seem not enough to support the conclusions.

Conclusions
 There is a need to rewrite this part. It seems vague and failed to clearly answer the objectives
of the study.

General Recommendations: Accept with major revisions