Write a comment

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

Partly

This manuscript would benefit from a single explicit research question inferred from the Gap questions and a clearer statement of the identification logic as exclusion is slightly overstated

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

The methods are appropriate and the robustness effort is good, but the authors must systematically revise the manuscript, as the DiD's causal claim (causality," "impacts," or "proving cause and effect") is not fully earned given the failed parallel-trends test and country-level treatment. The GMM check is compromised by AR(2)

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat supported

The paper overstates the strength of some claims, especially the DiD and the causal language. This manuscript should stick to the results gotten and presented in the limitation section.

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

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The data presentation is substantive and generally transparent, with strong descriptive and diagnostic tables but, some of the tables are overcrowded and difficult to follow.

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

Somewhat clearly

The discussion is rich, theoretically informed, and honest about limitations, but it does not fully reconcile its causal effect with its own diagnostic failures. The proposed next steps are sensible but sparse; "it is recommended to expand the sample to other African countries" is rigid. the paper would benefit from a more explicit research agenda tied to the identification problems it identifies.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Would it benefit from language editing?

No

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

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

Yes, after minor changes

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.