Perceived Health Impacts, Sources of Information and Individual Actions to Address Air Quality in Two Cities in Nigeria
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see attached review.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your observations and kind comments. We are also grateful for taken out your precious time to review this article. We really appreciate.
Best regards,
Timothy M. Chukwu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Very honestly, the manuscript starts with a clear question to be investigated, but during its development, it misses part of its coherence. I see that the authors want to investigate many various aspects that were not previously declared. Thus, was very difficult for me to understand which part is devoted to the problem of poor air quality and which one clearly refers to the survey.
Many interesting aspects are surely reported, but I found them mixed in the paper without a clear frame that can conduct the reader through them grasping properly the outcomes. The conclusions are pretty clear, but it was hard, in my opinion, to reach them with the lecture of the whole paper. It could be a problem of a my personal understanding of the paper.
My suggestion is to reconsider the present version and suggest to the authors a deep revision of their work, not in terms of scientific contents, but in terms of clarity: the revision should be oriented in proposing to the reader a clear path of the study reorganizing the content that actually is scattered. Specifically: clearly stating in the methodology the fundamental questions posed to the investigated samples, proposing the results without comments, and presenting in the discussion all the additional pieces of information that now are present in different parts of the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your observations and kind comments. We are also grateful for taken out your precious time to review this article. We really appreciate.
Best regards,
Timothy M. Chukwu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Findings of your research are of great local value to advance in the knowledge of the impacts of compromised air quality and health. This is because inefficiency, corruption, poor data management and inadequate research of health system you highlight. Perception studies are significant tools to diagnose environmental conditions and value how they relate to the state of health of a community. In particular, people´s voice and opinion help to design integrated AQ management policies to promote a healthy environment, human and animal wellbeing.
Described above value of your paper will be better if you make a clearer presentation of results. Particularly, description of tables in terms of number of tests performed. Concerning table 3 you describe a total of 72 tests performed, but if we consider 6 categories of health impacts times 7 demographics and two cities, the total amount of performed tests is 84. Therefore, I strongly recommend you to carefully revise and clearly describe your results. For example, concerning the number of statistically differences in table 4 your describe 4 for the income category and 3 for education, however your table shows different figures (3 and 2 respectively).
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your observations and kind comments. We are also grateful for taken out your precious time to review this article. We really appreciate.
Best regards,
Timothy M. Chukwu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Submission Title: Perceived Health Impacts, Sources of Information and Individual Actions to Address Air Quality in Two Cities in Nigeria
1. Study time is specified in the abstract.
2. It is necessary to present part of the results numerically In the results section, there are no results that specify the details.
3. You can use the following article to improve the quality of the study in the introduction section: https://doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2020.1833299.
4. In page 4, section" Sources of information on air quality" : Oman by [32]: what is the What does it mean? Please rewrite it?
5. More complete information about the measuring tool or the questionnaire is necessary, such as the fact that this questionnaire included several sections, and what information was included in each section in general, except for demographic information, and how many questions each section had, as well as the validity and reliability of the questionnaire. It is necessary to provide explanations on how the validity and reliability process was carried out It should also be explained about Cronbach's alpha, whether it has been tested or not, and It should also be explained about Cronbach's alpha, whether it has been tested or not, whether this questionnaire needs this coefficient or not, if yes, its value should also be provided.
6. Concologen is usually a part of the whole study, including that it is necessary to cover the results part of this conclusion, so it is necessary to include the results, which means that part of the conclusion should include information that is numerically obtained from the results of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your observations and kind comments. We are also grateful for taken out your precious time to review this article. We really appreciate.
Best regards,
Timothy M. Chukwu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
This manuscript mainly discuss about the perceived health impacts, sources of information and individual actions to adree air quality in two cities in Nigeria. The authors did provide the details of all data resources and background review. Also, the authors did use the up-to-date references in the manuscript. However, there is still some aspacts that recommend to be address before accepted. For example, the author quoting a lot of original sentences, which could be consider to address the reference mode.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your observations and kind comments. We are also grateful for taken out your precious time to review this article. We really appreciate.
Best regards,
Timothy M. Chukwu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I perfectly understand the author's reply to my comments.
I still find the paper not perfectly clear even if the content is of interest. I saw the modifications to the paper, which I assumed were proposed by the other reviewers, and are very few; thus, their opinion is quite different from mine.
As I also wrote in my previous review, my suggestions were due to a lack of clarity, in my opinion, and not to the scientific content.
I still remain in my opinion it could be rewritten more clearly, but I place "reconsider after major" in order to allow the Editor to properly balance all the reviews received.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time taken to review this article and your comments. We really appreciate.
Best regards,
Timothy M. Chukwu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Editor
The authors have corrected the corrections and ambiguities, In my opinion This article can be published
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for your time taken to review this article and your commendation. We really appreciate.
Best regards,
Timothy M. Chukwu
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
I have had to see the revised version. Probably I still miss the concept of 'perception' of poor air quality, which could be a personal problem because of my long work in the field of pollution where, for my studies, poor air quality was measured. But I understand that there is an existing world outside my personal 'perception'. The Authors find it difficult to improve their paper following my too-general suggestions, and I can absolutely understand them: most probably, it is a matter of very different approaches. As I previously stated, the scientific content is anyway interesting, even though I have difficulties properly grasping the entire content.
I have also to take into account the other reviewers do not rose up comments similar to mine; thus, sometimes is the reviewer not properly indicated, but this is not guilty to the authors but mine I did not properly understood from the abstract.
Because the rounds were many and I aslo agree the scientific content is present and valuable, I place accept.
