Feedback editor: It is important that the reader gets a sense of what a document is about from the very start. I therefore suggest that you include a clearer, more detailed introduction. I have made some suggestions within the text that may help you present your central theme more effectively.

Feedback editor: The transitions between your sentences and paragraphs are not always clear. It’s important that your reader understands how the ideas and information that you present are linked. For tips about how you can make better transitions and to view some sample linking words and phrases, please see: https://www.scribbr.com/academic-writing/transition-words-phrases-list-misuses/.

Feedback editor: Typically, a preface should end with your name and the date and place of writing.

Feedback editor: You should be able to cut your abstract down to one page by single-spacing the text and removing the title/author information.

Feedback editor: You simply write that you conducted your study to prove your hypotheses. Be more specific. What was the goal of your study?

Feedback editor: You have hinted at the research questions that you formulate in your literature review, but you have not explicitly presented them. I have suggested a place where it would be helpful to add them.

Feedback editor: Be sure to clearly answer the research question in the abstract. The abstract should read like a miniature version of the entire paper.

Feedback editor: At the end of the abstract you should add a summary of the recommendations that you have included in chapter 7. This summary should include your ideas for future research.

Feedback editor: Opening with the broad significance of the topic will be helpful here.

Feedback editor: Here, it would seem, you should describe the study's relevance to pharmaceutical companies, along with any other practical applications.

Feedback editor: You have conducted a literature review, but you have not summarized important articles. Given the nature of your topic, this seems to be an appropriate decision.

Feedback editor: You have not mentioned your research questions in the “study objectives” section of the introduction (where they would normally be included). I have suggested an appropriate place to add them.

Feedback editor: You have not explained how your research is conducted. I have recommended a place in the “study objectives” section where you could add a brief explanation of your methodology.

Feedback editor: As noted. More specifically, see my consideration of your "objectives" sections in chapter 5.

Feedback editor: I'd recommend avoiding any interpretation (including giving your own opinion or making a call for further research) in the early sections of this chapter. Instead, I'd stick to answering the research questions and addressing the hypotheses. I've left in-text comments where the text veered in this direction. Save these elements for a dedicated section later in the chapter.

Feedback editor: In one instance on page 181, you mention two cases that you did not reference in a previous chapter (the CBO and Doolittle's Raid). Be sure not to mention new findings in the Conclusion. Either go back to an earlier chapter and make note of these instances, or else delete the reference from the Conclusion.

Feedback editor: Much of this section takes sentences from previous sections, almost verbatim. The conclusion should use varied language and go beyond simply summarizing the main points. I have provided further comments on this in the document.

Feedback editor: Rather than comparing, contrasting and synthesising the analyses, this section essentially summarises the reviews. Consider focusing more on the analysis piece here.

Feedback editor: The research limitations are not discussed. Instead, the limitations of big data analytics are discussed. Consider this difference as you finalize your paper.

Feedback editor: Consider elaborating on this in the discussion section.

Feedback editor: Consider adding this aspect.

Feedback editor: You talk about 50 people who disagree with the current political situation, but you do not specify the sources that substantiate this claim.I also recommend that you look at your statement that democracy is the best form of government. The question here is “According to whom?” If this is your own opinion, you need to make that clearer.

Feedback editor: In your introduction, you assume too much that the reader has the same knowledge as you. For instance, you should explain the term “meritocracy” at the end of the introduction. It’s currently not immediately clear what it means. In addition, in your literature review you could better explore the literature that directly discusses your topic (see my remark in Section 2.2) before you move on to secondary issues.

Feedback editor: In Section 4 .1 you report that no one was satisfied with the current situation; however, in your conclusions you say that three respondents had no opinion.

Feedback editor: Although I understand what you want to say, you have not specifically stated what the final conclusion of your text is. You should therefore take a careful look at my comment on p. 54.