Aftermaths of COVID-19 Lockdown on Socioeconomic and Psychological Nexus of Urban Population: A Case in Hyderabad, Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this study is well-conceived, but several modifications are necessary for improvement:

 Abstract: The abstract should be more concise and precise, with clearer findings and corrected grammatical errors. For instance, phrases like "in the largest city of Sindh province, Pakistan" need revision. Additionally, terms like "DASS" should be briefly explained for clarity. Specific recommendations or practical applications of the findings should be included to strengthen the abstract.

Section 2.1: There needs to be a justification for whether Pakistan is considered a low-income country. If so, this should be clearly related to the study, providing context for its relevance and implications.

 Literature Review: Ensure that all relevant sections of the literature review are explicitly connected to the Pakistani perspective. This will provide a clearer contextual background and enhance the study's relevance to Pakistan.

 Line 398-400: The choice of Hyderabad as the study area must be justified with supporting data. Providing specific reasons and data will help validate the selection and strengthen the study's methodological rigor.

Sampling Techniques: Discuss why more than one sampling technique was used in the study. Explain the relevance and benefits of using stratified and purposive sampling methods, and how they contribute to the study’s objectives.

Demographic Data: The demographic data indicates that most respondents do not fall under the low-income category. Relate this finding to the statement in Section 2.1 to ensure consistency and accuracy in the study's socioeconomic context.

 Figures/Graphs: Ensure that all figures and graphs are developed according to the journal’s guidelines. Proper formatting will enhance the clarity and professionalism of the study's presentation.

Study Contributions: Clearly explain how this study contributes to the government, people, and other relevant stakeholders. Highlight the practical implications and potential policy recommendations that can be derived from the findings to demonstrate the study's significance.

By addressing these modifications, the study will be more robust, coherent, and impactful, providing clearer insights and practical applications for addressing the socioeconomic and psychological impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in Pakistan. Wish you all the best!

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing is required

Author Response

Dear Sir/madam, 

We are much thankful for the invaluable suggestions. We have corrected manuscript as per suggested modifications. 

Please refer to the attached authors response and corrected manuscript for further reference.

Thanks, and Kind Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper herein aims at determining the impact of COVID-19 on of Pakistan’s Sindh province with socioeconomic and psychological 9 parameters of the residents. Author(s) found that the degree of psychological problems varies greatly depending on gender, and it also has notable socioeconomic consequences. In its current version, the paper has some issues and I hope that the suggestions will hopefully guide the authors in their efforts to improve the paper herein.

There is a very extensive literature on Covid 19. The author needs to clearly communicate the paper’s contribution to the extant literature on the topic. Motivation is clearly illustrated in the text, but how does the paper herein compare to the existing literature?

Emphasis is placed on explaining Covid 19 in detail. Instead, it would be more appropriate to emphasize the originality of the study in more detail. While the author tries to explain many things, it becomes difficult to understand the integrity of the subject.

It would be more appropriate to specify the time period in which the survey was conducted.

"3.2. Study Factors" negatively affects the fluency of the article. Is this subheading necessary?

"3-5Theory Behind the Study's Framework" is illustrated with a figure. Theoretical foundations for an article are very important. Otherwise, it will only be an empirical application. Therefore, it would be more appropriate if the theoretical foundations of the study were explained more clearly.

The lines between 457-476 is a direct rewrite of the data in Table 3. Instead, it would have been more appropriate for the author to interpret the main findings in the table. Similar situations are on the following tables and figures, and it would be more appropriate to review them again.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam, 

We appreciate your concerns and try our level best to comply all suggested modifications.

We thank you for your invaluable suggestions that upgraded the quality of our manuscript.

Please see attached report and corrected manuscript.

With kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on understanding the socio-economic and psychological impacts of COVID-19's virus and consequent lockdowns in Pakistan, more specifically in Hyderabad district. The authors rely on a population questionnaire to ascertain said impacts.

The subject of the paper is considered interesting and relevant to scholarship. The chosen methodology is also adequate to the proposed study. However, the article should undergo extensive revision before being accepted for publication.

 

Comments on structure and scientific content:

1. English writing needs to be reviewed and edited - phrasal construction sometimes makes it difficult to understand the ideas being conveyed and the paper should be written in the past tense as it addresses COVID-19's lockdowns in 2020/21.

2. As for the actuality of the paper, in various sections the author describes present situation as a lockdown which leads to think that the article was writen some years ago, during said lockdowns (eg. lines 119 or line 264) - this should be revised and the findings revisited accordingly (if needed)

3. The paper's structure is what one would expect in a scientific paper - introduction, state of the art, methodology, results and conclusion.

4. However, the introduction should be better constructed - the author seems to go back and forth. Also, this section lacks a clear hypothesis statement. Instead, the author makes a statement when he/she should phrase a question. Also, research questions are lacking.

5. Literary review - the first part (up to line 132) is a new introduction. This chapter should focus on referencing studies and investigations that have delved into the effects and impacts of COVID alone. Also, lines 128-132's content is not clear why it is writen here, nor its relevance explained.

6. Section 2.1 - not a lot of scientific substance. It is not clear not it is explained why the brasilian situation is referred or relevant to the study in question. No previous mention to its pertinence was made. (the same comment to line 6 and the reference of Spain and some other country references)

7. section 2.3 - very short text. social impacts should have had greater development in a paper that addresses that subject.

8. sections 2.1 to 2.6 should all be merged together and called Impacts of Covid-19 Worldwide. This would clearly mark the difference to section 2.7 - impacts in Pakistan. Also, merging the sections would enable the author to better structure the texts and better present worldwide cases and socio-econimic aspects.

9. Figures 4 and 5 summarize the methodology but it should be described in writing in a lenghtier manner. (there are 7 introductory pages and only 2 methodology which are almost all took up by two figures).

10. Figure 10 - two categories seem to be the same (albeit not very clear in English what they could mean) - 'neither hope nor doubt' and 'people did not expectation' - needs to be made clearer.

11. The questionnaire is composed of closed questions, which means the author has defined the possible answers. Although this is acceptable, it is not acceptable that some questions don't seem to have positive opinion feedback - for example the question addressed in figure 10 - options instability, poor infrastructure, dishonesty (no mention to measures of positive satisfaction) or the data refered to in Table 6 - mild to severe psychological impacts (no mention to the absence of psychological problems, which pressuposes that all the respondents - 400 - have had psychological problems). This questionnaire construction is biased and steers answers and, as such, its findings are somewhat debatable.

12. Findings - author states that socioeconomic status is an important factor to the pandemic's effects and contributes to inequality. The presented data from the questionnaire don't support this conclusion. For that, the author should present data that correlates psycological problems and social difficulties with household income/profession/education level and not gender alone. Albeit relevant, gender comparison is not sufficient to ascertain the differences of socio-economic impacts.

13. Policy proposals - some are note supported by the study findings and are not explained how the author got to them - they should be supressed or better grounded and justified (especially proposals iii and iv)

14. Conclusions - not appropriately constructed and presented: 1st paragraph (lenghtier one) is an abstract or introduction; 2nd paragraph does not have scientific content or writing, seems common-sense and cliched notions; 3rd pararaph (lines 732-735) addresses a conclusion but is very meager.

15. References - very extensive but maybe should be revised to include just the really relevant to the study and its context (see comment 6 above).

16. Since a questionnaire was conducted an ethical statement should be included at the end of the paper regarding the protection of participants' data and personal data.  

 

Comments on form:

1. The type of discourse is not consistent with scientific writing, rather too quoloquial and border-line common-sense-like. Eg: lines 100, 115-116, 180, 650-651.

2. Figure 1 - Terciary is not a level of education - should be corrected.

3. Figures 6 to 10 should be reduced in size - too big and not that much information to support occupying so much space. Figures 11 and 12 could also be reduced.

4. Figure 9 - correct word RELIABLE

5. line 526 - should be AGREE (27,5%)

6. line 658 - it is not a proposal, just a statement.

7. lines 59-60 - there is a citation in "" that is not referenced.

8. line 145- the São Paulo(BR) stock exchange is not called PAULO.

9.line 199 - why the mention of behaviour problems?

10. lines 32 and 289 - author talks about respondents and participants but these are not the respondents of the present study's questionnaire. should be made clear or rephrased.

 

Summary:

The subject of the paper is relevant and interesting but its development falls short of the expectation and its potential. The manuscript could be clearer and better structured, more scientifically written. The questionnaire construction brings doubts as to its biased and prejudice - the questions don't seem to allow for an array of answers that covers positive and negative views on the inquired aspects, rather just allowing for negative answers.

The figures and tables take proeminent stage in the paper, instead of the written description of results and data.

The conclusions are poor and since no hypothesis and no research questions were posed, this chapter is thus hindered.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English writing needs to be reviewed and edited - phrasal construction sometimes makes it difficult to understand the ideas being conveyed and the paper should be written in the past tense as it addresses COVID-19's lockdowns in 2020/21.

Also some sentences seem to be left hanging without a propper conclusion to the ideas being presented.

Although legible with some effort, major revision of the English writing is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We have tried our level best to comply with all your invaluable suggested comments.

We appreciate your report with open heart and made essential modifications accordingly.

We hope that corrected manuscript will fulfil your expectations. Please see attached report and corrected manuscript.

Thanking you in an anticipation.

With kind regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Article “Aftermaths of COVID-19 Lockdown on Socioeconomic and Psychological Nexus of Urban Population: A Case in Hyderabad, Pakistan” approaches very important topic, which is relevant to the journal. Article shows important results, but there are some linquistical and structural issues that needs to be addressed before publication.

(1)  Whole article, especially introduction and literature review is written as if Covid-19 is happening in the present moment, for example: ”People are extremely worried because of this ” Please consider to rephrase some parts, since pandemic seems to be over at least in many countries.

 

(2)  Claim: ”Because of the extreme climate change, degraded ecosystems, and loss of biodiversity that nations confront, the COVID-19 catastrophe challenged human adaptability to an unknown future [22]. ” is unclear and needs clarification. Also regression model at the end of literature review came quite suddenly and seems unclear.

 

(3)  Author have ambicious attempt to cover different aspects of consequences of Covid 19 and clearly is very familiar with the previous studies regarding this theme, but there is a lot of repetition in the chapters. I suggest revisiting them all and removing repetition. For example there is several claims about psychological effects of Covid-19 pandemic. Is it possible to combine and write about this subject in one section? COVID-19 Lockdown Consequences on Human Psychology have a separate chapter, but is mentioned early on many times.

 (4)  Following sentences are not related. Also please explain what kind of psychological effect there are: The lockdown had a significant impact on human psychology in the people of India. 142 Brazil did not get COVID-19 until late February 2020, yet it rapidly gained international 143 attention.

 

(5)  This is stigmatizing expression, please reframe:  But not everyone has a strong mind, 160 especially in a developing nation like Bangladesh where most people don't have enough 161 money saved to last through a continuous lockdown [25]

 

(6)  2.3 chapter is too short and should be integrated with other chapters

 

 (7)  Please chack if this claim is still true?: ”Lockdowns are presently in place in numerous nations to 264 help contain the spread.”

 

(8)   I dont think it is good idea to compare mental health problems with viruses, since it is also stigmatizing and simlyfyng: ”Fear, anxiety, depression, suicide deaths, and a general decline 265 in welfare are all psychiatric illnesses that have increased as viruses have spread over the 266 world [43].” Condider rephrasing this.

 

(9)  I also found this expressions stigmatizing and simlifying: Lockdown can affect people differently depending on their age: youngsters may become bored if they run out of things to do; the elderly may feel restricted; and adults may feel overburdened by domestic tasks in the absence of domestic servants or other servants [46]. There are several studies all over the world that Covid-19 had huge consequences of young people mental health beyong boredom. Also maybe it is better to write about services that  families with children use, not cervants.

 

(10)              Please divide this section into paragraphs: 2.7. Impacts of COVID-19 Lockdown on Pakistan

 

(11)              I read article many times, but did not find information about when data was collected. plese check that it is clearly stated.

 

I wish authors good luck in finalizing their manuscript and am looking forward to read the published article.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some stigmatizing expressions that I have pointed out.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

We are much thankful for your positive feedback and essential corrections.

We have corrected our manuscript as per your suggestions.

Please see attached report and corrected manuscript.

Thank you much.

With kind regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the comments from the first revision and have presented an improved version of the submitted paper. The reviewer commends the authors for taking into account the sugestions made and for having taken the time and effort to revise their work.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer # 3,

We, the authors, are grateful for your invaluable inputs throughout editorial process. We also thank you for accepting our manuscript for publication.

With Kind Regards.