Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction has improved it, as well as the references. The methodology section was updated and it was improved, especially a step-by-step approach of how the study will be carried out. It was important to be included the expected result section, as well as templates of tables. Considering all this improvement, in my opinion, now warrants publication in IJERPH as Study Protocol.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 has warranted the manuscript to be published in its current state. There are no comments.  We just corrected the American/ United Kingdom spelling to be consistent in the document. This is highlighted in yellow in the document.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study structure to evaluate of the impact of illegal dumping of solid waste on public health in Lagos. It seems that a detailed questionnaire will be conducted and some valuable information will be obtained on all the aspects of illegal dumping. Some minor editing for the language would be helpful. It could be published after that.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is acceptable, moderate revision would be helpful. 

Author Response

Good day

Reviewer 2 did not specify areas where language editing is required, however, we went through the whole document to check for any errors and made correction. 

Regards

Dr. Senekane

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Please see attachment for details

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required. References should be provided using MDPI format.

Author Response

attachment for details

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

it is a well-designed work, with good foundations and good methodological construction. However, it is incomplete because it does not apply the methodology.

However, Considering that article as Study Protocol I suggest approved it. It is suggested to resubmit the work after having the results, because the publication potential will be high, depending on the quality of the analysis and conclusions.

Author Response

attachment for details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf