“Following the Science”: In Search of Evidence-Based Policy for Indoor Air Pollution from Radon in Ireland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

            The paper  is very interesting, well written and structured, and shows some progress in developing an effective public health policy on indoor radon or more generally on evidence-based policy. In my opinion, it is a problem solution paper (essay) not  a review article as would result from the abstract (“Through purposive literature sampling, we critically  examine the case of indoor radon policy development in Ireland”) and introduction (they gave   background information specific to the topic,  explained the scope of the discussion, and the  purpose for writing the review).  In order to publish this article, my suggestion is,  that  it needs to be re-edited. The authors have gathered an interesting literature database, so I encourage them  to take up this challenge.

            The section Results is  not a presentation of the results but a fairly general discussion. The authors need to add an experimental evidence, e.g. describe important results from recent primary papers. They should use figures and/or tables to present their  own synthesis of the original data or to show key data taken directly from the original papers . Currently, this part is not very specific for theoretical research work.  

            In the methodological part, more emphasis should be placed on the description of data that confirm or refute the discussed point of view, experimental techniques that were used to generate the data, what criteria were finally adopted, etc.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: ‘Following the science’: in search of evidence-based policy for indoor air pollution from radon in Ireland

 

This paper reviews policy-making methods and recommendations to assist in the establishment of public health policy related to radon in Ireland.

This paper contains detailed information on the necessity of radon policy and policy decisions, but there is a lack of scientific prevention measures for radon regarding the regulatory value, risk, concentration of each building, and prevention method of radon. In my opinion, it is considered that it can be accepted in the journal of Sustainability as if scientific aspects are modified.

1. In the introduction part of the paper, conclusions were drawn through an introduction and four sections according to the risk of developing radon-related lung cancer.
2. In the Evidence-Based Policy Decision section, what kind of evidence is needed when making political decisions for politics, science, practical knowledge, and social science, however, only general methodologies were written.
3. In indoor radon pollution, the risk of radon pollution, and the exposure to indoor radon pollution, and the policy on public health of radon were described.
4. In Materials and Methods, a method for establishing policies and collecting data on radon was only described. More specific methods for policy making process are needed.
5. In the policy part of the result, Irish radon-related policies, their effects, and improvements of radon policies were recommended.
6. In the scientific knowledge section, only general evidence is presented, but concretely, scientific measurement, trends, and prevention methods are needed.
7. In the epidemiological section, the incidence rate of lung cancer due to radon is suggested, but it seems that more concrete examples are needed.
8. From an economic point of view, specific cost burdens and benefits are well explained using the UK example.
9. In the Health Psychology section, it is well explained kinds of radon related research needs using the survey.
10. In the evidence-based policy section, scientific knowledge integration describes how to make policies based on evidence, but it is necessary to supplement the scientific knowledge about radon contamination and measures.
11. In the practical knowledge of evidence-based policy section, there is a plan to classify policy makers, homeowners, and test providers, but it is considered that the roles of policy makers, homeowners, and test providers are needed to be more clearly defined.
12. The necessity of evidence-based policy is well written, but policy making related to radon is not written specifically.
13. In the conclusion, the necessity of policy on radon and the necessity of scientific research are acknowledged, but more detailed policy contents such as detailed radon regulation, risks, indoor radon concentrations, and prevention methods based the characteristics of the building are needed.

In conclusion, the English expression of this paper does not seem to have any major problems, however, it is considered that scientific prevention methods of radon such as the regulatory values, risks, and concentrations of targeted buildings are needed to be applied to be published in the journal of Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I believe that the changes and corrections to the manuscript have significantly improved its quality and the scientific nature of the work.