Climate Change and African Migrant Health
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The structure of the text is logically organized and readers can get the idea how the articles to be read for the study were physically collected. However, the text lacks comprehensive contextualization, presentation of the problem, presentation of the material and methodology, there are no theoretical considerations and argumentations, concluding discussion is superficial, etc. The article should be rejected.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. However, we believe we have conducted a review that systematically map the literature on African migrant health and climate change including identifying and synthesizing sources of evidence that inform practice in the field of African migration and its relationship with climate change. Despite the paucity of primary research in the area, we have prepared a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done and strategies employed for the identification and selection of eligible studies. Based on few literatures available, we have presented the problem and overview of existing evidence relating to the relationship between climate change and African migrant health. We believe that this paper meets the requirements of international journal of environmental research and public health and suitable for their target audience including researchers, practitioners, educators and students in the field and members of the general public whose lives are affected in some way by the problems most Africans face with migration.
This is for your consideration.
Reviewer 2 Report
Extremely relevant, current and necessary topic.
Although the methodology is duly described, and considering that the research was developed in 2021, I suggest the inclusion of the PRISMA methodology update of 2020 (Matthew J Page et al – The PRISMA 2020 statement: na updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews)
“the occurrence of which is increasing concurrent with cli-mate change Environmental changes related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations include” – I suggest correcting the text because, unless there is a better opinion, the repetition of climate change and environmental change makes the sentence not robust and a little confusing
On 2.3. Stage 3: Article Selection
“inclusion criteria: 1) focus on climate change; 2) focus on African immigrants; and 3) focus on health”
So, The inclusion criteria are duly described in the above transcribed paragraph. However, in the results 3.1. Study Characteristics, it is mentioned that “one of the studies included refugees, one included internally displace persons (IDPs), one included African migrants in a European country, and one included rural-urban migrants.” Is this last article, if it refers only to the population studied and referred to as African migrants in a European country, is it within the inclusion criteria?
The same situation mentioned in 3.4. Mental Health and Social Capital - which addresses the relationship between mental health and social capital among refugees from Nigeria, Liberia, or Afghanistan in Italy, despite the limitations in the sample referred to in the study
Author Response
Extremely relevant, current and necessary topic.
Response: Thank you.
Although the methodology is duly described, and considering that the research was developed in 2021, I suggest the inclusion of the PRISMA methodology update of 2020 (Matthew J Page et al – The PRISMA 2020 statement: na updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews)
Response: We have reviewed the 2020 PRISMA-ScR statement and the paper has been adjusted accordingly. lines 61-63 and lines 259 -260.
“the occurrence of which is increasing concurrent with cli-mate change Environmental changes related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations include” – I suggest correcting the text because, unless there is a better opinion, the repetition of climate change and environmental change makes the sentence not robust and a little confusing.
Response: we have made corrections to the entire statement and now reads “In that same year, approximately 2 million new displacements were as a result of natural disasters (Tanner et al., 2015), the occurrence of which is increasing simultaneously with climate change related to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations including flooding, drought, increased frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters, and sea-level rise” Lines 38-41
On 2.3. Stage 3: Article Selection
“inclusion criteria: 1) focus on climate change; 2) focus on African immigrants; and 3) focus on health”
So, The inclusion criteria are duly described in the above transcribed paragraph. However, in the results 3.1. Study Characteristics, it is mentioned that “one of the studies included refugees, one included internally displace persons (IDPs), one included African migrants in a European country, and one included rural-urban migrants.” Is this last article, if it refers only to the population studied and referred to as African migrants in a European country, is it within the inclusion criteria?
Response: Our study population focused on different categories of African immigrant including refugees and Internally Displaced Persons living in any country. This meets our inclusion criteria.
The same situation mentioned in 3.4. Mental Health and Social Capital - which addresses the relationship between mental health and social capital among refugees from Nigeria, Liberia, or Afghanistan in Italy, despite the limitations in the sample referred to in the study
Response: The population of interest is African immigrants irrespective of status in any country, this still meets our inclusion criteria however, the statement now reads... “In one cross-sectional study, the perception of climate change was reportedly negatively correlated with social capital (r= -0.416) among African refugees living in Nigeria, Liberia, Afghanistan and Italy (Di Giorgi et al., 2020); that is, as the perception of climate change increased, social capital decreased” line 141- 144.
Reviewer 3 Report
This review article is well written. I am recommending some minor revisions before its publication as mentioned below.
1. Modify the title. Dont use scoping word in the title.
2. There are a few grammatical mistakes in the text. I request authors check the manuscript before submission of the revised version.
3. Some of the references are not as per the format of the journal. Update it accordingly.
Rest is ok.
Author Response
This review article is well written. I am recommending some minor revisions before its publication as mentioned below.
Response: Thank you.
Modify the title. Dont use scoping word in the title.
Response: This has been corrected. Our title now reads… “Climate Change and African migrant Health” line 2.
There are a few grammatical mistakes in the text. I request authors check the manuscript before submission of the revised version.
Response: We have reviewed the paper and corrected the grammatical errors.
Some of the references are not as per the format of the journal. Update it accordingly.
Response: This has been corrected.
Rest is ok.
Response: Thank you.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In comparison to the first version, the article has not improved and it has kept all deficiencies instead. Therefore, it should NOT be published.
Author Response
We have submitted all corrections previously from all the 3 reviewers but looks like the reviewer one still send a message and requested that it should not be published.
Again, our publication has met all standard rules including that of PRISMA guidelines and checklist.
