Structured PREreview of Flood Risk Profile of Nigeria

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

The introduction highlights that a major obstacle to risk control in Nigeria is a lack of understanding of the risk, resulting in a significant knowledge vacuum regarding how to improve current efforts to solve the problems caused by floods. It emphasizes that a thorough risk assessment is essential for decision-making and policy formulation, as it fully explains the reasons behind and effects of prospective losses

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

The author adapted the secondary data collection approach, which is well-suited for the research objective of developing a Disaster Risk Profiling for Nigeria, because the research goal is to synthesize a comprehensive Disaster Risk Profile. Therefore, the methodological choice of conducting an extensive review of existing, authoritative secondary data on risk, vulnerability, impacts, and policy frameworks is well-suited to fulfill that objective

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

1. The conclusions presented in the preprint are strongly supported by the detailed evidence, impact statistics, and analysis of systemic failures documented in the preceding sections of the research. 2. The research identified a significant knowledge gap regarding how to enhance current efforts to address flood problems. 3. The conclusions reinforce this need by citing specific operational and strategic failures that the data revealed. The data collected, which focuses on disaster risk, vulnerability, impacts, and inadequate implementation, provides extensive justification for the conclusions regarding systemic operational failures, insufficient adaptation of solutions, and the critical need for integrated policy change and funding for DRR.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Highly appropriate and clear

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Very clearly

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The preprint is likely to advance academic knowledge by filling a critical gap, synthesizing diverse data, and explicitly setting forth a comprehensive research agenda for the future

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

A language editor could refine the document by enhancing sentence structure, correcting grammatical inconsistencies, and ensuring the tone and vocabulary are consistently concise and formal, thereby improving the overall professionalism of the preprint. 1. Incomplete Structure: A clear grammatical issue appears in the description of the economic losses from the 2022 floods. The sentence detailing the estimated 6 trillion naira in losses concludes improperly: "...farmers are already counting billions of naira lost as forecasts suggest the floods will last even until the end of October becomes". This unfinished or incorrect phrasing hinders full comprehension of the time frame. 2. Phrasing Issue: The paper sometimes uses phrasing that is unusual in academic writing, requiring the reader to infer the intended meaning. For example, the statement that flooding "...in most Nigerian cities remains a significant environmental issue that defies settlement" is unclear, whereas a term like "defies solution" or "remains intractable" would be more appropriate. 3. Lack of Flow: The presentation of vital statistics is occasionally structured awkwardly, as seen when summarizing historical flood impact: "More than 11 million people in Nigeria have been impacted by flooding between 1985 and 2014, life with a total of 1100 fatalities...". The phrase "life with" is grammatically incorrect and disrupts the flow of the impact statistics.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

Resolving the language issues would make it excellent. It's a great paper.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Readiness for an Editor: The preprint is highly appropriate for immediate attention from a language editor to refine the existing text and ensure maximum clarity and professionalism before submission to a journal. Given its comprehensive methodology and its potential to advance academic knowledge, investing in language editing would significantly increase its chances of formal publication and broader acceptance. Readiness for a publisher or broader audience: The preprint has grammatical errors, confusing phrasing, and unclear expressions that may hinder comprehension. While the core academic content is sound and the findings are well-supported by the data, the language issues could lead a publisher to reject the preprint or request extensive revisions. Nonetheless, the preprint is highly valuable in its current form for a specialized, engaged academic or policy audience.

Competing interests

The author declares that they have no competing interests.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

The author declares that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.