Editorial Report

Manuscript: Urban Road Drainage Failure Analysis and Rehabilitation Planning in Juba City, South Sudan: Integrating Hydrological Modelling, Failure Mode Diagnostics, and Cost-Benefit Optimisation
Journal: African Journal of Community and Environmental Health
Authors: Aduot Madit Anhiem
Correspondence: 

Reviewer Summary:
- Reviewer 1: major revision
  Major issues (3): The reliance on the Rational Method for hydrological modelling in a complex urban catchment is a major weakness; more sophisticated models (e.g., SWMM) should be employed or justified given Juba's specific conditions., The manuscript lacks critical discussion of data limitations, particularly the reliability and spatial representativeness of 42 years of rainfall data from a single airport station for city-wide analysis., The cost-benefit analysis appears overly optimistic; assumptions about future maintenance costs, discount rates, and benefit quantification (especially social benefits) require thorough justification and sensitivity analysis.
  Minor issues (3): The abstract exceeds typical length limits and contains incomplete sentences (cut off mid-analysis)., Inconsistent referencing to figures and tables throughout the text disrupts readability., The introduction provides insufficient background on South Sudan's institutional and financial constraints, which are crucial for contextualising rehabilitation feasibility.
- Reviewer 2: reject
  Major issues (3): Inadequate validation of hydrological modelling parameters - reliance on single rainfall station data and the Rational Method without proper calibration against observed flood events raises serious questions about model accuracy, Questionable data quality and sampling methodology - field survey covering only 26.4km of drainage infrastructure without clear sampling strategy or statistical power analysis, Superficial integration of multiple methodologies - the claimed integration of hydrological modelling, failure diagnostics, and cost-benefit analysis appears disjointed rather than systematic
  Minor issues (3): Poor literature review - insufficient engagement with existing urban drainage studies in similar African contexts, Inconsistent formatting and presentation - mixed citation styles and incomplete reference list, Overstated claims of novelty - while focused on Juba, the methodological approach is not particularly innovative
- Reviewer 3: major revision
  Major issues (3): The Rational Method application lacks justification for its suitability in Juba's complex urban environment, with no discussion of limitations or validation against observed flood events., The 42-year rainfall record from a single airport station may not represent spatial variability across Juba's 28 sub-catchments, potentially biasing IDF curves and subsequent capacity calculations., The cost-benefit analysis appears incomplete in the provided text, lacking details on cost estimation methods, benefit quantification, discount rates, and sensitivity analysis for key assumptions.
  Minor issues (3): The abstract exceeds typical length limits and contains technical details better placed in methodology sections., The manuscript uses both British and American English spellings inconsistently (e.g., 'optimisation' vs 'calibrated')., The affiliation listing with multiple institutions requires clarification regarding primary institutional support 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):
- Replace or substantially justify the use of the Rational Method with a more appropriate hydrological model for an urban setting, detailing its limitations.
- Expand the methodology section to explicitly address data limitations, uncertainty analysis, and assumptions in both hydrological modelling and economic appraisal.
- Restructure the abstract to be concise and complete, ensuring it accurately reflects the full study's scope and key findings.
- Strengthen the discussion by comparing findings with similar studies in other African cities and explicitly addressing practical implementation barriers in Juba's context.
- The reliance on the Rational Method for hydrological modelling in a complex urban catchment is a major weakness; more sophisticated models (e.g., SWMM) should be employed or justified given Juba's specific conditions.
- The manuscript lacks critical discussion of data limitations, particularly the reliability and spatial representativeness of 42 years of rainfall data from a single airport station for city-wide analysis.
- The cost-benefit analysis appears overly optimistic; assumptions about future maintenance costs, discount rates, and benefit quantification (especially social benefits) require thorough justification and sensitivity analysis.
- Conduct proper hydrological model calibration using observed flood data and multiple rainfall stations
- Provide detailed methodology for field survey design including sampling strategy and quality assurance procedures
- Strengthen literature review with specific focus on urban drainage studies in similar developing city contexts
- Include sensitivity analysis for cost-benefit assumptions and clearly document all economic parameters
- Inadequate validation of hydrological modelling parameters - reliance on single rainfall station data and the Rational Method without proper calibration against observed flood events raises serious questions about model accuracy
- Questionable data quality and sampling methodology - field survey covering only 26.4km of drainage infrastructure without clear sampling strategy or statistical power analysis
- Superficial integration of multiple methodologies - the claimed integration of hydrological modelling, failure diagnostics, and cost-benefit analysis appears disjointed rather than systematic
- Substantially revise the methodology section to justify model selections, document data limitations, and validate hydrological outputs against independent observations.
- Complete and transparently report the cost-benefit analysis methodology, including all assumptions, parameter values, and sensitivity testing.
- Provide explicit discussion of study limitations regarding data quality, model simplifications, and generalisability of findings.
- Standardise language to British English conventions throughout and restructure the abstract to focus on key findings rather than methodological details.
- The Rational Method application lacks justification for its suitability in Juba's complex urban environment, with no discussion of limitations or validation against observed flood events.
- The 42-year rainfall record from a single airport station may not represent spatial variability across Juba's 28 sub-catchments, potentially biasing IDF curves and subsequent capacity calculations.
- The cost-benefit analysis appears incomplete in the provided text, lacking details on cost estimation methods, benefit quantification, discount rates, and sensitivity analysis for key assumptions.