Interactions between Health and the Sustainable Development Goals: The Case of the Democratic Republic of Congo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. Although the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions, and findings. The manuscript knows lacks in scientific style and structure.

Abstract is well

Introduction What is the originality of this research?  Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section.

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what the originality and value of the proposed model is. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

Materials and Methods is well

Results

Figure 1,2,3,4,5,6 are very hazy.

Discussion is well.

Conclusions must be extended.

Conclusion:

-Managerial Implication

-Practical/Social Implications

-Future Research

Questions to be answered: What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

Some additional references:

Fülöp, M. T., Topor, D. I., Ionescu, C. A., Căpușneanu, S., Breaz, T. O., & Stanescu, S. G. (2022). Fintech accounting and Industry 4.0: future-proofing or threats to the accounting profession?. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(5), 997-1015.

Fülöp, M. T., Breaz, T. O., He, X., Ionescu, C. A., Cordoş, G. S., & Stanescu, S. G. (2022). The role of universities' sustainability, teachers' wellbeing, and attitudes toward e-learning during COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.

Breaz, T. O., Fulop, M. T., & Cioca, L. I. (2022). The role of E-Learning generated by the COVID-19 epidemic in higher education. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS COMMUNICATIONS & CONTROL, 17(5).

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am very happy for all the comments shared for the improvement of our paper.

We addressed them in the new version of our paper and you can see our answers in the documents attached .

Thank you again

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The paper is an interesting paper. It has important potential. However, the paper should go a careful revision by you.

1. I did not investigate the detail and sources in detail. However, the similarity report yielded a very high percentage, over 30%. This is not acceptable for a research paper. The paper should be revised with this respect to increase referencing, paraphrasing, discussing and comparatively analyzing. 

2. Tables and figures are very nice and also discussed adequately in the text. however, the contribution of the paper is unclear. The discussion of results with comparisons to literature should be advocated. Conclusion is too short. Highlights of the paper and directions for future research is missing in conclusion.

3. I assume that at this stage there is no possibility to extend the number of participants. As a result, no further analysis could be extended with respect to the empirical section. Given the nature of the study, the empirics in this paper should be taken as adequate. Limitations are addressed in the study before conclusion. I suggest the sample size limitation to be added here with suggestion to extend it in future studies.

Discussion section is quite long. I suggest division to subheading.  One of them should be policy recommendations.

After revision, the paper sould be reevaluated. Most important issue is similarity. It should be reduced, personal aspects should be more emphasized to highlight the contribution of the paper. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for all the comments  shared with us. We addressed them in the new version of our paper. Your comments helped us to improve our paper.

You can see in the documents attached our answers to your comments.

Thank you again

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Important and timely contribution to the literature on SDG interactions that demonstrates how soft systems thinking methodologies can be applied in contexts with limited data availability. The main contribution of the paper is the description of the methodology which is clear and concise and useful for further applications. The finding on SDG16 is interesting and relevant to the context under consideration.

There are a few important gaps in your bibliography that I would like to point out.

First, the paper by Hernández‑Orozco et al. (2021) on soft systems thinking lends a lot of strength to the approach that you take particularly in the DRC context. Your paper closely builds on this important contribution.

Hernández-Orozco, E., Lobos-Alva, I., Cardenas-Vélez, M., Purkey, D., Nilsson, M., & Martin, P. (2022). The application of soft systems thinking in SDG interaction studies: a comparison between SDG interactions at national and subnational levels in Colombia. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(6), 8930-8964.

Second, the method you apply was first developed by Weitz et al (2018) and should also be cited.

Weitz N, Carlsen H, Nilsson M, Skånberg K (2018) Towards systemic and contextual priority setting for implementing the 2030 Agenda. Sustain Sci 13:531–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0470-0

Third, in terms of future research, I would recommend you consider Horan 2022 who develops a framework for building multistakeholder coalitions for integrated implementation of a priority SDG based on evidence of the SDG’s interlinkages with other goals and targets. This might also provide some inspiration for future research.

Horan, D. (2022). A framework to harness effective partnerships for the sustainable development goals. Sustainability Science 17, 1573-1587.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments to our paper.

We addressed them in the new version that we will submit.

Your comments helped us to improve our paper and we hope now that the article is good because of your comments.

See attached our answers.

Thank you again

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please take in consideration all recommendations made.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to review this research paper. Although the topic of this research study is interesting and fits within the journal scope, I think authors should apply the comments indicated below to increase the quality of research justification, contributions, and findings. The manuscript knows lacks in scientific style and structure.

 

Abstract is well

 

Introduction What is the originality of this research?  Paper research gap and originality should be better presented at the end of introduction section.

 

Why is this study necessary? should make clear arguments to explain what the originality and value of the proposed model is. This should be stated in the final paragraphs of introduction and conclusion sections.

 

Materials and Methods is well

 

Results

 

Figure 1,2,3,4,5,6 are very hazy.

 

Discussion is well.

 

Conclusions must be extended.

 

Conclusion:

 

-Managerial Implication

 

-Practical/Social Implications

 

-Future Research

 

Questions to be answered: What practical/professional and academic consequences will this study have for the future of scientific literature (theoretical contributions)?

 

Some additional references:

 

Fülöp, M. T., Topor, D. I., Ionescu, C. A., Căpușneanu, S., Breaz, T. O., & Stanescu, S. G. (2022). Fintech accounting and Industry 4.0: future-proofing or threats to the accounting profession?. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 23(5), 997-1015.

 

Fülöp, M. T., Breaz, T. O., He, X., Ionescu, C. A., Cordoş, G. S., & Stanescu, S. G. (2022). The role of universities' sustainability, teachers' wellbeing, and attitudes toward e-learning during COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.

 

Breaz, T. O., Fulop, M. T., & Cioca, L. I. (2022). The role of E-Learning generated by the COVID-19 epidemic in higher education. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS COMMUNICATIONS & CONTROL, 17(5).

 

Good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

i am very happy for all the comments suggested. we worked and addressed them and we hope that this version will be good. Yours comments helped us to improve our manuscript.

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I reevaluated the paper entitled as "Interactions between health and the Sustainable Development Goals: the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo" .

My first critique in Round 1 was the high similarity in the paper. This challenges the originality of the paper. Authors responded that they worked on it and noted that they reduced it. 

Authors noted that they attended this issue.

It seems that it is not done. As I check the paper, similarity is still high. Is the wrong version or previous version is uploaded? It is almost the same with very minor decrease. It was 31%, but now, 28%, very high.  

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I am very happy for all the comments suggested to us. we worked on them and now we think that this version is ok.

Thank you very much

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, the final version is highly improved version of the paper. Congrats. The following should be corrected timely in a very short time and they are minor. My decision is a minor revision and another round is not necessary. 

1. Check title for upper case lower case letters. They should be corrected. (Such as, health should be Health)

2. Conclusion is very shortened, extremely shortened. You should extend it. Make a general introduction and underline your contribution with 3-4 sentences. First, state the importance of this research, state what method is used, with which dataset, country. What are contributions and shortly state policy recommendations as a summary. 

3. After the second round, similarity is reduced to 21% which is still high. It should be reduced. Sentences should be revised and references should be added. As a result, I had to choose "Must be improved" for the question in the review screen: "Are all the cited references relevant to the research?". Authors worked on it, they reduced it to 21% from 30%. It is moderately high. See the examples from the paper below. 

Screenshot 1:

 

Screenshot 2:

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we are pleased by all the comments made and now we are thinking that our manuscript is good. your comments helped us a lot. We addressed the comments made you can see our responses in the document attached.

Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf