Submited on: 10 May 2012 08:26:48 PM GMT
Published on: 11 May 2012 02:08:32 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Climate change has impact on public health


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No these are not the new. This is a review article and it summarized the public health impacts of cliamte change.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    To some extent


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No the review does not sufficiently submit evidence.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    I have thoroughly commented and put them in "Any other comments" section.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    If author can incorporate the comments in the revised version, the articel would add value.


  • Other Comments:

    Specific Comments

    Authors need to revise the manuscript taking the following comments into consideration:

    1. Abstract must be rewritten after revision.
    2. Authors need to justify why they focused on developing countries, why not developed countries? Much more literature supports are needed for justifying the selection of developing countries. Do impact of climate change varies between developed and developing countries? Do developing countries bear more on the climate change? How? And finally, think of more related issues that you think justify your study objectives.
    3. Can you support climate change with changes in temperature?
    4. Climate change induces extreme weather events (flood), which in turn cause displacement. Displacement is linked to mental health impact. Therefore you need to cover climate change and related public health impacts from comprehensive points of views. Please be as holistic as possible in covering public health impact on climate change.
    5. Please write a separate section, (e.g., Climate change and public health impact) from infectious disease to discussion.
    6. It would be more worthy, if you can broadly categorize the public health impacts and then discuss the specific public health impact. For example, impact on physical health, impact on mental health, and impact on public health budget. Later, you can put your points relevantly within a specific broad category. Still you may consider categorizations in alternatively ways. Such a change would make the article more organized.
    7. Increased diarrheal disease is another important impact of climate change. Authors need to include it in the revised version.
    8. Does increased temperature cause anxiety or other mental health problems? In fact, there is literature on climate change and mental health impact.
    9. Since your paper is based on literature review. It is very much important that you cite literature when you want to add something new. In fact, there is literature that links between these two elements. You need to add more  on this issue.
    10. Instead of putting discussion section apart, I would recommend for including these discussions into the specific point of “Climate change and public health impact”. Since your paper is a review article, it is more important to detail a specific finding from the literature that separately discuss them. Usually we discuss on original findings separately. Please incorporate them within the points of public health impact you have highlighted earlier.
    11. Please re-write the conclusion section once you revise the manuscript as per the above suggestions.
    12. You need to provide some very important suggestions in conclusion section of the revised manuscript. In addition to suggesting for global initiatives to reduce emission of green house gases, you need to put some suggestions on how to tackle public health burden in the developing countries. For example, you may consider increased fund for public health, people’s awareness about some common diseases that is caused by increased climate change and extreme weather events. And you can ting other important things too.  In this regard, it is necessary to be relevant to the issues you have discussed earlier.
  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I am not extensively working on this aspect but I have some experiences on this.

  • How to cite:  Sayem A M.Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries[Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW002001
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The climate is changing and the patterns of disesaes are also channging so the main claim of the author is that there is a relationship between the diseases and climate change which could be prevented by global effort.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No. This paper is a review paper and does not provide sufficient evidence (literature review) to support the claim.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The claims are not properly palced


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No. it does not. More evidences on effcet of climate change on health problem should be presented.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    It has no methodology. Review article must also present the methodology such as searching and reviewing strategy.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    No


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No


  • Other Comments:

    It can be improved by reviewing more articles in a systematic manner and generating supporting evidences to what author wants to claim.

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Climate change and Malaria in Jhapa district of Nepal: Emerging evidences from Nepal (to be published in next issue of Journal of Nepal Medical College

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Bhandari G P.Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries[Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001983
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The article is essentially a review of recent literature (2008-2011) related to climate change, and potential impact on health globally. The main claim is the climate change poses "the greatest challenges to public health in the 21st century". The authors conclude that action from a variety of organizations will be needed to address these challenges.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No; there is an abundance of reports on the potential impact of climate change.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    There is a rather limited number of references provided, as compared to the amount which has been written on the subject.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    This paper does not include any original research.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not applicable.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Not applicable.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    This paper does not include any original research.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. This paper does not include any original research.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Medical Director, Public Health - Dayton & Montgomery County

  • How to cite:  Herchline T .Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries[Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001980
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Global climate change: Implications for Public health in developing countries
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 09 Jun 2012 08:11:16 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The article is a summary of some literature related to climate change, public health, and developing countries. The main claims are the the effects of climate change impacts public health in developing countries. This is not a new thesis.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No, the claims are not novel. Only 12 articles are included in this review and although the claims are not disputed - they are not novel.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Generally the claims are properly placed. The reference to the British National Health Service are not well developed nor clear.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    This is not a study, but a review - there are no results.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No protocol is provided.


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No methods are provided.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Additional critical review of the literature would improved the paper. This should not be difficult to do.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    This is not an outstanding paper in its discipline. It's a nice overview -but not outstanding and not novel.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Polivka, B et al (2012) Environmental Health Perspectives, 120 (3)

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Global climate change: Implications for Public health in developing countries[Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001900
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Well-meaning review does not cut it
Posted by Anonymous Reviewer on 08 Jun 2012 06:51:14 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This well-written article claims to be a 'study' but it does not present any new data. It might be a review, but with only 12 references it cannot claim to be a review. So, it is a fairly unsupported opinion paper. The 'global PH' in the title is accurate, but really the information provided is generic. The title indicates that the main thrust of the paper is PH implications for developing countries, but the discussion focuses on the British National Health Service (NHS) and the WHO, and it provides generic advice that every country would have to tailor.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Nothing is novel.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    There is no critical review of some articles and many climate change impact areas contain


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The literature was not extensively examined and the 'results' are too weak to compare with anything. For example, the Lancet article cited about vector-borne diseases and written by modellers is hotly contested by public health entomologists, such as Dr Paul Reiter, who have provided a lot of evidence to show that climate changes in the ranges predicted are likely to have little or no impact on the distribution of many vector-borne diseases.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    N/A


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    There was no review methodology that was followed.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    So much would improve this paper - additional articles, critical analysis of impacts, thorough presentation of facts, etc


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    This is a student level paper.


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    Canyon DV. Aedes aegypti disregard humidity-related climate change. (submitted)

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    16 years of research and lecturing in environmental health, climate change and vector-borne disease

  • How to cite:  Anonymous.Well-meaning review does not cut it[Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001890
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
A Good Review Article
Posted by Prof. Gowrishankar Ramadurai on 08 Jun 2012 03:23:57 PM GMT

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The authors have reviewed the effect of climate change on the global health status. This is definitely an important issue that everyone needs to seriously consider, especially developed nations.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    The authors have not claimed anything new but have reviewed the issue citing references. Though the authors have not extensively quoted previous literature, it does convey the main issue in an effective way


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes. What the authors state is true in the current scenario.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    Not applicable


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Yes.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    There is always scope to quote more previous literature to comprehensively review the topic.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    Though it is not outstanding, it is neither below par.

     


  • Other Comments:

    The authors conclusions are acceptable especially their last sentence that the developed nations should pay more attention to help the developing and poorer countires is highly important point to note. However I would also comment that the diction is not so good.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Not much

  • How to cite:  Ramadurai G .A Good Review Article[Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001888
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The relationship between the effects of changes in the environment and public health, with a particular focus on global warming and developing countries. 


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    No, This is a review article.


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    some extent


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No, It has no methodology. Review article must also present the methodology such as searching and reviewing strategy.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No, may be improve this paper - additional articles, critical analysis of impacts, thorough presentation of facts, etc


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    may add the critical review of the literature would improved the paper. 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    NA


  • Other Comments:

    Authors need to revise the manuscript

  • Competing interests:
    None
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    No

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    NA

  • How to cite:  Kaewpitoon N .Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries[Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(6):WMCRW001887
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? Yes
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    Its a well presented article,good study.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    12yr

  • How to cite:  Gilani S A.Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries [Review of the article 'Global Climate Change: Implications for Public Health in Developing Countries ' by Siddiqui M].WebmedCentral 2012;3(5):WMCRW001800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse