Editorial Report

Manuscript: Occupational Health and Safety Hazards Among Informal Waste Pickers and Recyclers in Addis Ababa: An Original Investigation
Journal: African Journal of Public Health and Health Systems
Authors: Meklit Bekele
Correspondence: mbekele@hotmail.com
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18361810

Reviewer Summary:
- Reviewer 1: major revision
  Major issues (1): Review generation failed.
- Reviewer 2: reject
  Major issues (5): The introduction section is entirely incoherent and appears to be corrupted or generated erroneously. It repetitively cites irrelevant studies (e.g., on leukaemia, thyroid function, contraceptive use) while claiming they are relevant to waste picker occupational health, which they are not. This invalidates the entire scholarly foundation of the paper., There is a complete absence of a logical narrative or critical review of the actual existing literature on informal waste pickers' occupational health, either in Ethiopia or globally. The manuscript fails to establish a knowledge gap or justify its originality., The methodology, while briefly mentioned in the abstract, is not detailed in the provided text. There is no information on sampling strategy justification, questionnaire validation, clinical observation protocols, ethical approval, or data analysis techniques, rendering the study's rigour impossible to assess.
  Minor issues (3): The abstract uses a 12-month recall period for injuries, which is prone to significant recall bias, a limitation not acknowledged., The term 'clinical observations' in the abstract is vague and requires precise definition (e.g., what was observed, by whom, using what criteria?)., British English conventions are not consistently followed (e.g., 'recognise' is used correctly, but 'behavior' would be expected as 'behaviour').
- Reviewer 3: minor revision
  Major issues (1): Review generation failed.

Editorial Decision: major revision

Ethics & Transparency Checklist:
- Conflicts of interest: Not stated
- Funding disclosure: Not stated
- Data availability: Not stated
- Ethics approval (if applicable): Not stated
- Review method: Automated reviewer simulation (requires human verification before publication).

Required Changes (consolidated):
- Provide a complete peer review and revision plan.
- Review generation failed.
- A complete and coherent literature review must be written from scratch, citing and critically engaging with actual relevant studies on informal waste management and occupational health.
- A full, detailed methodology section must be provided, covering study design, sampling, data collection instruments (provided as supplementary material), clinical assessment protocols, qualitative interview guides, data analysis procedures, and ethical considerations.
- A complete results section must be presented with appropriate statistical tests, tables, and integrated qualitative themes.
- A full discussion and conclusion must be added, interpreting findings in the context of the corrected literature review, acknowledging study limitations, and making specific, feasible policy recommendations.
- The entire manuscript must be proofread and structured according to standard academic conventions for an original research article.
- The introduction section is entirely incoherent and appears to be corrupted or generated erroneously. It repetitively cites irrelevant studies (e.g., on leukaemia, thyroid function, contraceptive use) while claiming they are relevant to waste picker occupational health, which they are not. This invalidates the entire scholarly foundation of the paper.
- There is a complete absence of a logical narrative or critical review of the actual existing literature on informal waste pickers' occupational health, either in Ethiopia or globally. The manuscript fails to establish a knowledge gap or justify its originality.
- The methodology, while briefly mentioned in the abstract, is not detailed in the provided text. There is no information on sampling strategy justification, questionnaire validation, clinical observation protocols, ethical approval, or data analysis techniques, rendering the study's rigour impossible to assess.
- The results are presented only as summary percentages in the abstract without any statistical analysis, confidence intervals, or linkage to the qualitative findings. The claim of a 'mixed-methods design' is not substantiated by any demonstration of integration or triangulation.
- The discussion and conclusion sections are not provided, so the interpretation of findings, comparison with existing literature, and the proposed 'targeted interventions' lack any substantive backing or logical argument.