Editorial Report

Manuscript: Flood-Resilient Road Design Standards for the Sudd Wetland Region of South Sudan
Journal: African Journal of Climate Science and Vulnerability Assessment
Authors: Aduot Madit Anhiem
Correspondence: 

Reviewer Summary:
- Reviewer 1: major revision
  Major issues (3): Insufficient methodological detail on the hydrological modelling approach, particularly regarding data sources, validation procedures, and uncertainty quantification for the Log-Pearson Type III distribution application, No validation or sensitivity analysis for the benefit-cost calculations, with the reported NPV of USD 4.7 million per kilometre appearing exceptionally high without supporting evidence or comparison to regional benchmarks, Inadequate consideration of practical implementation challenges in South Sudan's context, including construction material availability, local technical capacity, maintenance requirements, and security constraints affecting infrastructure projects
  Minor issues (3): Abstract and introduction contain redundant content that should be streamlined, Inconsistent citation format throughout the manuscript (e.g., World Bank, 2022 vs. Mason et al., 2016), Missing discussion of ethical considerations regarding field investigations in a conflict-affected region
- Reviewer 2: reject
  Major issues (3): Inadequate validation of proposed standards through field trials or case studies, Questionable benefit-cost analysis methodology with unrealistic NPV figures (USD 4.7 million per km) unsupported by transparent calculations, Over-reliance on remote sensing data (2010-2023) for flood frequency analysis without ground-truthing or consideration of longer-term climate variability
  Minor issues (3): Poorly defined study area boundaries and selection criteria for 'three representative road corridors', Insufficient discussion of construction feasibility and maintenance requirements in conflict-affected region, Limited consideration of alternative design approaches or comparative analysis with existing wetland road standards
- Reviewer 3: major revision
  Major issues (3): Insufficient methodological detail: The paper omits critical information about the remote-sensing data sources, processing methods, and validation procedures for flood frequency analysis, making reproducibility impossible., Unsubstantiated climate change surcharge: The 25% climate change surcharge on peak discharge lacks justification through regional climate projections or sensitivity analysis, appearing arbitrary., Inadequate consideration of implementation feasibility: The proposed standards (e.g., lime stabilisation, geotextiles) do not address local material availability, construction capacity, maintenance requirements, or cost implications beyond the high-level NPV.
  Minor issues (3): Incomplete benefit-cost analysis: The NPV calculation of USD 4.7 million per kilometre lacks transparency regarding discount rates, cost components, and benefit monetisation methods., Limited geotechnical sampling: Field investigations across only three road corridors may not capture the full spatial variability of subgrade conditions in the vast Sudd region., Ambiguous authorship affiliation: Dual institutional affiliations (UNICAF/Liverpool John Moores University and UniAthena/Guglielmo Marconi University) require clarification regarding primary research base and ethical approval.

Editorial Decision: reject

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 comprehensive methodological details for all analytical components, including data sources, processing steps, model parameters, and validation procedures
- Include sensitivity analysis for the benefit-cost calculations and compare results with similar infrastructure projects in comparable environments
- Expand the discussion section to address implementation challenges, maintenance requirements, and adaptation strategies for local constraints
- Clarify the study's limitations regarding data quality, model assumptions, and generalisability to other wetland regions
- Insufficient methodological detail on the hydrological modelling approach, particularly regarding data sources, validation procedures, and uncertainty quantification for the Log-Pearson Type III distribution application
- No validation or sensitivity analysis for the benefit-cost calculations, with the reported NPV of USD 4.7 million per kilometre appearing exceptionally high without supporting evidence or comparison to regional benchmarks
- Inadequate consideration of practical implementation challenges in South Sudan's context, including construction material availability, local technical capacity, maintenance requirements, and security constraints affecting infrastructure projects
- Conduct and report field validation of proposed standards through pilot implementation
- Provide complete methodological details for benefit-cost analysis with sensitivity testing
- Extend hydrological analysis with longer-term data and ground verification
- Address construction and maintenance practicalities in conflict-affected environment
- Inadequate validation of proposed standards through field trials or case studies
- Questionable benefit-cost analysis methodology with unrealistic NPV figures (USD 4.7 million per km) unsupported by transparent calculations
- Over-reliance on remote sensing data (2010-2023) for flood frequency analysis without ground-truthing or consideration of longer-term climate variability
- Provide a detailed methodology section including remote-sensing data sources, processing steps, and validation metrics for the flood frequency analysis.
- Justify the 25% climate change surcharge with regional climate model projections or peer-reviewed literature, or replace it with a sensitivity analysis.
- Expand the discussion to address practical implementation challenges: local material sourcing, construction techniques, maintenance regimes, and training needs.
- Include a transparent breakdown of the benefit-cost analysis, specifying all cost inputs, benefit valuations, discount rates, and sensitivity tests.
- Insufficient methodological detail: The paper omits critical information about the remote-sensing data sources, processing methods, and validation procedures for flood frequency analysis, making reproducibility impossible.
- Unsubstantiated climate change surcharge: The 25% climate change surcharge on peak discharge lacks justification through regional climate projections or sensitivity analysis, appearing arbitrary.
- Inadequate consideration of implementation feasibility: The proposed standards (e.g., lime stabilisation, geotextiles) do not address local material availability, construction capacity, maintenance requirements, or cost implications beyond the high-level NPV.