NLIU LAW REVIEW

FEEDBACK FORM

Manuscript Code: <U(131)A>

Area of Law: < Environmental Law, Indigenous Rights >
General Comments:

<Rejected. The language exhibits numerous grammatical errors and tense inconsis

Grammar/Language
[Does the author use correct grammar? Is the author’s language clear and compelling? Does the
author avoid making use of sentences that are difficult to follow?]

The language used in the article needs improvement. There are numerous grammatical errors,
awkward sentences, and unclear phrasings. Consistency in tense and sentence structure should be
maintained throughout the article for clarity and coherence. Further, the manuscript is riddled with
missing words and typos, severely undermining its professionalism. The author needs to focus on the
tense used in the text. The article frequently shifts between past and present verb tenses, which
may confuse the reader. For example, in the introduction, the author uses both past and present
tenses within the same sentence: "The Indigenous people, since time immemorial, have been
subjected to marginalisation...". This inconsistency disrupts the flow of the narrative.

Structure/Logical Coherence
[Does the author outline the structure of his work and proceed systematically? Is the author’s
approach the correct approach to the research question? Has the author been able to link different
parts of his/her argument together logically?]

The article's structure is somewhat disjointed and lacks clear transitions between sections. It lacks a
clear introductory roadmap that outlines the structure and purpose of the paper. As a result, readers
are left to guess at the article's direction, leading to potential confusion. Transitions between
sections and arguments are abrupt or non-existent, making it challenging for readers to follow the
author's train of thought. Improved transitions would help guide readers through the article more
smoothly.
Contribution to Existing Literature
[What is the author’s contribution to the subject? Has the author built on the existing literature on
the subject in such a way as to contribute something new? Has the author explained something in a
novel way?]

While the article provides an overview of the issues related to water resources in indigenous
territories, it could strengthen its contribution to the existing literature by incorporating more
original research or case studies. The manuscript lacks novelty and relies heavily on summarising
existing literature without significantly contributing new insights or original research. Further, there
are no fresh perspectives or case studies to enhance its scholarly value. Additionally, the article
should acknowledge opposing viewpoints or counterarguments to present a balanced view. Failing
to do so weakens the overall persuasiveness of the author's position.

Contemporary Relevance
[Does the subject matter relate to an issue in the past year? Has the subject matter been linked to
the present day in any way if it is not of contemporary significance?]

The article does not hold much contemporary relevance. Its relevance is compromised by its reliance
on outdated statistics and projections, failure to address changing environmental dynamics, limited
exploration of emerging water conflicts, lack of attention to recent policy changes, and failure to
examine relevant international agreements. For instance, the article mentions the lack of a global
framework for addressing water resource issues in indigenous territories. However, it does not
explore recent international agreements or initiatives addressing these challenges. The author fails
to acknowledge various developments in ecology and nature, leaving the article disconnected from
the current environmental realities.

Referencing and research

[How well-researched is the article? Has the author used references to support his/her arguments in
the right places? Has the author avoided redundant referencing? What is the quality of the
references?]

The article frequently makes claims without proper citations to back them up. For example,
statements about the El-Niño effect's impact on indigenous communities lack references to specific
studies or sources, leaving the reader questioning the validity of these claims. Further, The article
relies on sources that may not be authoritative or reputable, such as unnamed studies from the
"National Centre for Biotechnology Information." These vague references raise doubts about the
credibility of the information presented. The article would benefit from more extensive and up-to-
date referencing to support the arguments and claims. The author may consider citing recent
studies, reports, and legal documents on indigenous rights and water management.