COVID-19, Housing, and Environmental Injustice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript by Njoku and Joseph reviews the systemic barriers contributing to racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. The background material is correct and familiarizes with the subject matter of the article. The explanation of the terminologies was helpful. The ‘challenges’ section reviewed in depth with current relevant references and well-written ‘recommendations’ to the challenges shows the topic was well reviewed.
Minor comments:
-remove ‘the’ before COVID-19 in line 24
-line 37-38 includes both Hispanic and Non-Hispanic, should one be removed?
-line 57 healthy foods
-line 84 consider changing the spelling of colour to ‘color’
-line 121, 119, 123 ‘extremely’
-line 138 Of 170 children…
-line 157 ‘are’ linked to
-line 186 ‘fewer’ people
-line195 cycle
-line 201 consider removing ‘unexpected’ may be redundant with ‘emergency’
-line227 ‘the’ environment
Author Response
- Reviewer 1
Review Report Form
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
(x) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript by Njoku and Joseph reviews the systemic barriers contributing to racial and ethnic disparities in COVID-19 outcomes. The background material is correct and familiarizes with the subject matter of the article. The explanation of the terminologies was helpful. The ‘challenges’ section reviewed in depth with current relevant references and well-written ‘recommendations’ to the challenges shows the topic was well reviewed.
Minor comments:
-remove ‘the’ before COVID-19 in line 24
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the correction.
-line 37-38 includes both Hispanic and Non-Hispanic, should one be removed?
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the correction.
-line 57 healthy foods
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
-line 84 consider changing the spelling of colour to ‘color’
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
-line 121, 119, 123 ‘extremely’
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
-line 138 Of 170 children…
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
-line 157 ‘are’ linked to
- Thank you for the comment. We wrote ‘is’ linked to since the word ‘exposure’ is singular.
-line 186 ‘fewer’ people
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
-line195 cycle
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
-line 201 consider removing ‘unexpected’ may be redundant with ‘emergency’
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
-line227 ‘the’ environment
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change. We appreciate your careful review of our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting paper, actual and practical
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Interesting paper, actual and practical
- Thank you for your kind feedback to our paper.
Submission Date
18 December 2022
Date of this review
- Jan 2023 22:53:31
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In this manuscript, the authors discussed environmental injustice and racial and ethnic disparities related to COVID-19 and housing. This manuscript contains sufficient background knowledge to introduce definitions of environmental justice related terminologies and listed numerous previous studies to support the conclusion. Although the manuscript was prepared in a good format, there are some major concerns:
1. Some of the studies referenced in the manuscript are not well described. For example, from line 105 to 107, “…outlined districts where people of color lived …”, is this a common situation across the country? In the New York Times paper, how many regions were included in the investigation? What is the data source? A descriptive sentence is good for the readers to capture the idea, but in a scientific journal, conclusions should be supported by data. Another example, on line 121, “Data shows that 20% of black households …”, What is the total number of households in this study? The EPA provides environmental justice data, I highly recommend the authors to provide comprehensive background information for all studies that referenced in the manuscript. This is important for readers who do not have strong environmental justice knowledge to get a better understanding of the manuscript.
2. The EPA provides environmental justice datasets through the EPA Environmental Dataset Gateway, the authors should think about incorporating the datasets from EPA and COVID-19 data from the CDC to provide a comprehensive background knowledge to support the conclusion.
Minor:
1. Figure 1 should be Table 1.
2. Reference 16 on line 91 missing brackets.
3. References seem not linked to the in-text citations.
Author Response
Review Report Form
Open Review
(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report
English language and style
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
|
Yes |
Can be improved |
Must be improved |
Not applicable |
|
|
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are all the cited references relevant to the research? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Is the research design appropriate? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the methods adequately described? |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
( ) |
|
Are the results clearly presented? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
|
Are the conclusions supported by the results? |
( ) |
( ) |
(x) |
( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
In this manuscript, the authors discussed environmental injustice and racial and ethnic disparities related to COVID-19 and housing. This manuscript contains sufficient background knowledge to introduce definitions of environmental justice related terminologies and listed numerous previous studies to support the conclusion. Although the manuscript was prepared in a good format, there are some major concerns:
- Some of the studies referenced in the manuscript are not well described. For example, from line 105 to 107, “…outlined districts where people of color lived …”, is this a common situation across the country? In the New York Times paper, how many regions were included in the investigation? What is the data source? A descriptive sentence is good for the readers to capture the idea, but in a scientific journal, conclusions should be supported by data. Another example, on line 121, “Data shows that 20% of black households …”, What is the total number of households in this study? The EPA provides environmental justice data, I highly recommend the authors to provide comprehensive background information for all studies that referenced in the manuscript. This is important for readers who do not have strong environmental justice knowledge to get a better understanding of the manuscript.
- Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated more empirical studies into the paper.
- The EPA provides environmental justice datasets through the EPA Environmental Dataset Gateway, the authors should think about incorporating the datasets from EPA and COVID-19 data from the CDC to provide a comprehensive background knowledge to support the conclusion.
- Thank you for your comment. We have incorporated more empirical studies into the paper.
Minor:
- Figure 1 should be Table 1.
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
- Reference 16 on line 91 missing brackets.
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change.
- References seem not linked to the in-text citations.
- Thank you for the comment. We have made the change. We appreciate your careful review of our paper.
Submission Date
18 December 2022
Date of this review
12 Jan 2023 19:56:15
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I endorse this paper for publication.
