All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
The manuscript is well-written and has a logical structure. The authors have responded to all the reviewers' comments well. After going through the whole revised manuscript and the authors' responses to reviewers' comments, I believe that the manuscript is now in good form and can be published by the journal.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Valeria Souza, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Please respond to the reviewers' comments in a point-by-point manner.
The article has significant impact to solve the water insecurity problem of Indigenous communities across the Canada. The language is clear and well understanding. Some sentences need to modify as these sentences are not well written. I marked these sentences with yellow colour.
The author should separate the Literature Section from the Introduction section. In my observation, Literature section is insufficient. The authors should bring some good evidence from other countries how the source water is managed in Indigenous communities.
In the research objective section, the authors should modify some parts like instead of using research plan, authors can write research aims/objective or target.
After methods, the authors should give a title like Results and discussion before starting the discussion like "Water Advisories in Canada.
The authors directly jump to the conclusion. Before writing the concluding section, authors should add few sentences depending on over all findings.
The conclusion title should rewrite like Policy Recommendation and Conclusion.
The study design is well structured. Need to revise the research aims/objectives section. Instead of using research plan, authors should mention research aims/objectives/targets.
The authors have rigorous investigation of the water insecurity issue of Indigenous community in Canada. Need to separate the "Literature Review"section and bring some good practices as example.
Methods are well described.
The findings are validated considering the present situation. I visited Fogo Island in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada and found that the drinking water supply system is not well developed. People need to collect drinking water one point and if the supply system has any problem then people need to buy water from store with high price.
Conclusion section is well written but the heading should be like Policy Recommendation and Conclusion.
In the policy recommendation section, the authors should focus on collaboration between federal, provincial, indigenous governments and communities to solve the common problem.
The reference section is rich and well cited in the body text.
I commend the authors on a well-researched and extensively cited literature review. The topic provides valuable insights and lessons for many spheres of interest.
The basic reporting is professional and unambiguous and the introduction adequately introduces the subject with a clear motivation. The following amendments will improve the manuscript:
1. The abstract needs to include some of the findings/conclusions as it currently only includes the methodological approach followed. Please ensure that the structure of the paper (also mentioned in lines 103-116) is in alignment with the abstract.
2. Language and Grammar requires attention in places. Please refer to the comments in the pdf document.
3. Abbreviations. Please ensure that the first time a word is used it is written in full, thereafter in abbreviated form. Please go through carefully and check all abbreviations. (e.g. DWS and Drinking Water System is interchanged throughout the document).
The article content is within the Aims and Scope of the journal. The subject matter is comprehensively covered and all sources are adequately organised. The organisation of the study design can be improved upon, as follows:
1. Double check the use of headings/sub headings fonts etc. There are places where the section level felt jumbled.
2. Please consider recompiling the section (Line 367: Other methods for NOM removal…) into a table format or bullets. There is a lot of valuable information. A table format may provide a more logical comparison of all the methods.
3. As indicated in the document- Line 170 to 190 is a repeat of the introduction. Consider cutting down the introduction to avoid verbatim repetition.
W
The findings of the literature review are valid and novel. The conclusion is well stated and linked to the original research question. To strengthen the conclusion further, please add any unresolved questions/gaps/future directions.
Well done on all the hard work
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.