Escrever um comentário

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

Yes

In the introduction, the authors highlight the growing concerns of air pollution as a global environmental threat, and its direct and indirect impact on avian species. They underscore the importance of birds as important bioindicators in health ecosystems. The objective is clear, relevant and appropriate for the title of the study.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Somewhat appropriate

While the review organizes information into clear thematic sections i.e. physiological, behavioral, reproductive, ecological, and population-level effects, which improves readability and conceptual clarity, the paper fails to specify its search strategy, inclusion or exclusion criteria, databases searched, or time frame of publications reviewed. Without this transparency, it is hard to assess whether the literature selection was comprehensive or potentially biased.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Highly supported

The review concludes that air pollutants such as particulate matter, heavy metals, and sulfur dioxide cause respiratory distress, oxidative stress, reduced fertility, and altered song communication in birds. The claims are well supported by a number of cited studies revealing histopathological damage to respiratory tissues, changes in antioxidant enzyme activity, and behavioral modifications.

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

Somewhat appropriate and clear

The authors orient the paper into well-defined sections i.e. physiological effects, behavioral changes, reproductive outcomes, and mitigation strategies. This textual organization makes the flow of ideas easy to follow, even without heavy visual data. However, there are no statistical graphs, charts, or meta-analytical plots (e.g., bar graphs of pollutant concentrations vs. physiological responses). Since the review summarizes numerous studies, such visuals could have provided stronger comparative insights. Again, figures and tables do not aggregate or quantify findings. For example, it is difficult to tell how many studies reported a particular effect or average magnitude of decline. This has the potential of limiting the ability to interpret data trends or measure the strength of evidence.

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

Somewhat clearly

The authors present a coherent synthesis progressing from physiological to behavioral, reproductive, ecological, and population level impact. Each subsection ends with a brief interpretive summary linking pollutant exposure to specific biological outcomes. This helps in vitualizing how individual findings connect to broader ecological implications. However, it does not deeply critique the quality, methodology, or limitations of the studies cited. For example, differences in sample size, pollutant concentration, or environmental context are rarely discussed.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

The review consolidates information from numerous studies that were previously dispersed across ecological, toxicological, and environmental literature. This integration helps researchers see the cumulative picture of how air pollution affects birds, bridging sub-disciplines that often operate independently.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

The manuscript uses appropriate scientific terminology and maintains an academic tone throughout. However, there are occasional issues with sentence structure, tense consistency, and punctuation, which slightly affect readability. Some sentences are overly long or repetitive, making the narrative wordy and less concise.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The preview has not undergone formal peer review. Therefore, readers should use it for background understanding, not as definitive evidence or for citation in high-impact academic papers.

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

Yes, after minor changes

It is suitable for editorial attention once minor language polishing and content strengthening are completed. It is not yet ready for broad audience or formal journal submission in its current form but could be made ready with modest improvements.

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.