Water Rationing, Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Practices and Social Distancing at the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study of Melaka, Malaysia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper title: "Impact of Water Rationing on Personal Hygiene Measures during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Study in Melaka, Malaysia" explores the impact of water rationing on personal hygiene measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in Melaka, Malaysia. It analyzes data from a questionnaire-based survey of 120 respondents and employs non-parametric statistical tests to draw conclusions. The research uncovers certain interesting trends regarding personal hygiene practices and social distancing measures. However, there are several weaknesses and areas for improvement in this study.
The study is highly localized to Melaka, Malaysia, and during a specific period. It is essential to acknowledge the limited generalizability of the findings to other regions and timeframes. The paper mentions a two-month water rationing period. The duration of the rationing might impact the results. If water rationing had been longer, the impact on personal hygiene measures and the ability to draw strong conclusions could be different. The paper should discuss how the results might apply beyond this context or suggest areas for further research.
The use of purposive sampling introduces selection bias and compromises the representativeness of the sample. A more comprehensive explanation of why this method was chosen is required. Employing a more random or stratified sampling approach would improve the study's validity.
The literature review section lacks both breadth and depth. It does not sufficiently cite pertinent previous studies or position the paper within the broader field. The inclusion of references to the mentioned paper could substantially improve the manuscript's quality.
Yusuf, A. E., & Abas, A. J. (2023). The Neighborhood Social Distancing to Prevent Covid-19 In Red Zone of South Tangerang City In Indonesia. Devotion Journal of Community Service, 4(2), 601-614.
Vadiati, M., Ghasemi, L., Samani, S., Islam, M. A., Ahmadi, A., Khaleghi, S., ... & Bhattacharya, P. (2023). A sustainable trend in COVID-19 research: An environmental perspective. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11, 372.
The paper lacks a detailed description of the questionnaire's development, validation, and reliability assessment. To establish the validity of the survey instrument, it is essential to provide a more thorough discussion of its construction and testing procedures.
While the paper mentions the data's lack of normal distribution and the choice of non-parametric tests, it would be beneficial to elaborate on the implications of this non-normality. A more comprehensive justification for the selection of specific statistical methods would help readers understand their appropriateness.
The study primarily focuses on correlations between factors, but it does not establish causation. The paper should clarify that this is a correlational study and discuss the limitations of inferring causation based on these findings.
Self-reported data for personal hygiene practices may be subject to recall bias and social desirability bias. These potential sources of bias should be acknowledged, and the paper should discuss how they might affect the study's outcomes.
The research does not sufficiently address external factors that could confound the results. Variables such as public health campaigns, government policies, or access to information can influence personal hygiene practices and social distancing. A more robust analysis of these external factors is needed.
The demographic information provided is limited. Adding more details about the participants' demographics and socioeconomic status would provide a clearer picture of the sample and improve the study's interpretation.
The paper concludes without suggesting potential areas for further research. It would be valuable to provide some recommendations for future studies in this field.
While the paper discusses personal hygiene practices, it does not delve deeply into the potential health implications of these practices during the pandemic. The study could benefit from a more comprehensive discussion of how changes in hygiene practices may impact public health and the spread of diseases like COVID-19.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The paper exhibits several English language issues. It lacks consistent verb tense usage, creating confusion. Simplifying complex sentences would improve clarity. Correcting punctuation errors and improving word choice are essential. Abbreviations need consistency and definitions. Redundancy should be eliminated, and proper article usage and subject-verb agreement are necessary. Addressing these language concerns will enhance clarity and accessibility for a broader audience during the revision process.
Author Response
Dear Prof./Dr.,
A very good day to you. We are grateful for your kind review, comments, and advice on our first draft. We sincerely apologise for all the errors and limitations in the said draft.
We attach herewith our point-by-point responses to your kind comments. We apologise for any limitations or errors in our revision.
Thank you for your kind attention, consideration, and advice. We are indeed grateful for the opportunity to submit our paper to this esteemed Journal.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author(s),
Thank you for this opportunity to review your article. I appreciate your work, although it is necessary to review the text before publishing it according to the below suggestions:
Data Collection Mechanism Section: Please, in this section you should make clearer how you conducted the interviews.
Line 226: Please, do not use the term "races" to indicate different ethnicities: the term race is really inappropriate as well as incorrect from a scientific point of view. You can use "ethnicities" or other equivalent terms.
Lines 436-439: Please, improve your bibliography in these lines.
Lines 447: Please, improve your bibliography. The theme is very huge.
Author Response
Dear Prof./Dr.,
A very good day to you. We are grateful for your kind review, comments, and advice on our first draft. We sincerely apologise for all the errors and limitations in the said draft.
We attach herewith our point-by-point responses to your kind comments. We apologise for any limitations or errors in our revision.
Thank you for your kind attention, consideration, and advice. We are indeed grateful for the opportunity to submit our paper to this esteemed Journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached file
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Understandable and clear language, with openness of vocabulary
Author Response
Dear Prof./Dr.,
A very good day to you. We are grateful for your kind review, comments, and advice on our first draft.
Thank you for your kind attention, consideration, and advice. We are indeed grateful for the opportunity to submit our paper to this esteemed Journal.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title of the work does not delimit the area covered by the study and by containing the word pandemic it implies that it is global, yet the impact derives from the perceptions of the interviewees.
For data analysis there are no references to global data such as state population except the number of inhabitants - 932,700; however, education of the population; active and inactive workers; homes with internet access and other descriptors evaluated, although line 204 reports demographic data without presenting the corresponding numbers. In Table 2, this is made clear: “there is no correspondence to the demographic data of the population of the state studied” since the hypotheses are fragile due to the breadth of perspectives of the interviewees.
Still in Table 2, what does RM mean? The values shown are in which currency?
Due to the small sample size (120 people, which corresponds to approximately 0.01% of the state's population) and, even adopting non-parametric tests, the statistical methodology used to infer significance of the results obtained was absent, for example: Sampling by Area, Systematic, Non-probabilistic or Non-Random, for Convenience? Such facts compromise the qualitative interpretation of the study data.
This is repeated in the parameter “water reserve to quench thirst”, it is a non-measurable parameter because, if there is a physiological need to ingest water, this will be done regardless of any other variable – this is the attitude of human survival.
Author Response
Dear Prof./Dr.,
A very good day to you. We are grateful for your kind review, comments, and advice on our first draft. We sincerely apologise for all the errors and limitations in the said draft.
We attach herewith our point-by-point responses to your kind comments. We apologise for any limitations or errors in our revision.
Thank you for your kind attention, consideration, and advice. We are indeed grateful for the opportunity to submit our paper to this esteemed Journal.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank the author for addressing all the comments. The paper is considered acceptable in its current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s),
Thank you for your efforts in improving your article. Now the paper presents a setting more correct.
