Sustainable Development Goals in the Horn of Africa: Human Rights to Food, Water, Health, and Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Assessment of SDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the Horn of Africa: human rights to food, water, zero hunger, health, and education” focuses on cross-country comparison of progress on four SDGs in eight Horn of Africa countries using a synthetic indicator based on Pena’s DP2 distance and UN data up to 2019. The topic is relevant and the general analytical idea is understandable. Nevertheless, in its current form the paper has substantial conceptual, methodological, and editorial weaknesses, so I would recommend major revisions before it can be considered further. Please see my comments and suggestions below:

1. The conceptual framing needs to be corrected throughout the manuscript. The paper is presented as a study of SDGs 1–4, yet in multiple places the text switches back to MDGs 1–4, Table 1 is described as showing the relationship to increases in “MDGs 1, 2, 3, and 4,” and the ending again refers to achieving the “MDGs” in other regions. This is not a minor stylistic issue, because it creates confusion about the actual policy framework being assessed. The manuscript needs a careful conceptual revision so that the terminology is consistent from the abstract to the conclusions.

2. The data construction and reproducibility need to be presented in much greater detail. The authors state that they use the most recent comparable data up to 2019, but where 2019 data were unavailable they used “the nearest year as an alternative.” This is a major issue for comparability, especially in a study with only eight countries and eight variables. The paper should therefore provide a full appendix or table listing, for each variable and each country, the exact year used, the exact source, the original value, the transformed value, and the code or algorithm used for the DP2 computation. At present, the Data Availability Statement says the data are available only on request, although the study is based on UN indicators and an R-based procedure. That is not sufficient for replication.

3. The paper over-interprets a pre-2020 cross-sectional exercise and draws conclusions that are not fully supported by the evidence presented. The analysis is explicitly based on data “up to 2019,” yet the abstract and discussion make strong claims about post-COVID stagnation, future humanitarian crises, and the inability of countries to reach the 2030 targets. These claims may be plausible, but they are not demonstrated by the dataset used in the paper. A cross-sectional indicator for 2019 cannot by itself substantiate statements about what happened after COVID-19 or what “will surely follow” in the future. The authors need either to limit the claims to what the 2019 data actually show or to expand the dataset and analysis accordingly.

4. There are serious internal inconsistencies in the reported results, which undermine confidence in the reliability of the manuscript. Table 2 reports Kenya’s DP2 as 6.4, Djibouti’s HDI as 0.60, Kenya’s HDI as 0.52, and Ethiopia’s DP2 as 3.5. However, in the narrative discussion Kenya is reported once as 3.46, Djibouti’s HDI is stated as 0.52, Kenya’s “average human development” is given as 0.60, and Ethiopia is later reported as 4.1. In addition, the text says the difference between Djibouti and Somalia is 8, whereas Table 2 implies 7.1, and one sentence suddenly refers to “SDGs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5” although the study only covers SDGs 1–4. These are not cosmetic problems; the results section must be checked line by line and corrected. I would also strongly encourage the authors to add a robustness/sensitivity check for the DP2 rankings.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English and overall presentation need substantial professional editing. The manuscript is understandable, but the current level of English is below publishable standard. There are many signs of insufficient proofreading: typographical errors and broken words (“miniet almal,” “informati on,” “Dijbouti”), awkward headings such as “Subsubsection Definition and properties…,” residual template text such as “Academic Editor: Firstname Lastname,” and other formatting/presentation problems. The final version should be thoroughly proofread by a professional academic editor or a fluent native speaker.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Constructive Feedback for the Authors, Highlighting Areas for Improvement:
To enhance the manuscript's contribution and better align it with Earth's standards, several areas require focused revision. Firstly, the most pressing issue is to address the temporal gap in the data and its implications. While acknowledging the data's limitation to 2019, the authors should integrate a dedicated discussion within the "Discussion" or "Conclusion" sections on how the COVID-19 pandemic and more recent climate events might have altered the observed SDG trajectories and disparities. This could involve leveraging qualitative insights from recent literature or outlining a clear research agenda for adapting the framework to contemporary realities, making the policy recommendations more forward-looking.
Secondly, it is crucial to deepen the analytical interpretation and causal explanations. Instead of merely describing the rankings and variable importance, the authors should explicitly analyze the underlying drivers behind these disparities. For example, when discussing Somalia's low performance, explore in detail how factors such as prolonged conflict, weak governance, and climate shocks have systematically affected its ability to meet specific SDG targets, drawing on established theories of state fragility and development. This would transform descriptive findings into compelling arguments.
Thirdly, the human rights framework needs stronger integration and elaboration. While the title mentions human rights, the body of the text does not fully operationalize this concept within the analysis. The authors should explicitly define which human rights frameworks (e.g., international covenants) inform their variable selection and how a rights-based approach fundamentally shapes the interpretation of SDG achievements or failures. This would provide a robust ethical and theoretical lens for the study.
Fourthly, the engagement with recent academic scholarship should be strengthened. While UN reports provide valuable context, the manuscript should incorporate more recent (post-2019) peer-reviewed academic articles in sustainable development, social science, and regional studies focused on the Horn of Africa. This would ensure the work is situated within current scholarly debates and reflects the latest understanding of the region's challenges and solutions.
Finally, while the paper's overarching objective is clear, refining the article's structure and flow would significantly improve its readability and academic rigor. Adopting a more conventional journal structure with distinct "Introduction," "Literature Review," "Methodology," "Results," "Discussion," and "Conclusion" sections would enhance clarity. The "Discussion" section should offer a deeper, analytical interpretation of the results, systematically linking them to the literature and theoretical frameworks, before presenting policy implications and future research directions in a comprehensive "Conclusion." A more concise, more impactful title might also be considered to improve discoverability.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. While the content is generally understandable, the prose frequently suffers from overly long and complex sentence structures, awkward phrasing, and occasional grammatical inaccuracies. This diminishes the clarity and academic tone expected in a top-tier international journal. For example, sentences such as "Our index holds significance as it has not been previously applied to measure SDGs 1–4 within these countries as of 2019, and it uses the latest available data, considers the criteria defined in the UN SDGs (within the framework of the 2030 Agenda), and applies a multidimensional approach" (Lines 45-48) are convoluted and require significant effort from the reader to parse. Repetitive statements and slight imprecision in vocabulary (e.g., "evenness/unevenness of progress" in Line 43) also occur. A thorough professional editing by a native English speaker with expertise in academic writing and sustainability research is strongly recommended to enhance conciseness, precision, and overall readability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised manuscript presents a highly relevant and methodologically robust analysis of SDG progress in the Horn of Africa, offering significant insights into sustainable development challenges. The application of Pena's P2 distance method provides a valuable quantitative approach to assessing inter-country disparities. To further elevate the article's quality for the journal, addressing the following points is crucial:

1) Inconsistency in Reporting Results: On page 8, line 315, the text states, "Djibouti is followed by Kenya (3.46)...". This value (3.46) is inconsistent with Kenya's DP2 Indicator of 6.4 as presented in Table 2. This discrepancy is a critical error that must be resolved immediately. Please verify the correct value and ensure consistency throughout the manuscript. If '3.46' refers to a different metric, it needs an explicit definition and a clear explanation of its relevance to the DP2 ranking.

2) Clarity and Concise in English Prose: While generally comprehensible, the English prose frequently lacks the conciseness and precision expected. Many sentences are overly long or contain redundant phrasing. Instances of informal expressions, such as "In my opinion," should be replaced with a more objective academic voice (e.g., "This finding suggests," "The analysis indicates"). A comprehensive and rigorous language edit by a native English speaker is essential to enhance readability, refine the academic tone, and eliminate minor grammatical issues, ensuring a clearer expression of the research.

3) Nuance in Policy Recommendations: The policy recommendations, while valuable, could benefit from greater specificity and direct linkage to the study's empirical findings. Specify how the identified disparities in the P2 distance method directly inform or strengthen certain policy actions. Providing more actionable, data-driven recommendations detailing how aid or interventions should be structured based on quantitative results would significantly enhance their practical impact for a global policy audience.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. While the text is comprehensible, there are frequent instances of overly complex sentence structures, redundant phrasing, and occasional grammatical inaccuracies that hinder readability and precision. The overall tone tends to be somewhat verbose, and a more concise, direct academic style would greatly benefit the manuscript. A thorough review by a professional English language editor (native speaker with academic writing experience) is highly recommended to refine sentence construction, improve word choice, and ensure grammatical correctness throughout the paper. This will enhance the clarity of the complex arguments and data presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has been revised based on feedback and is now of satisfactory quality.