ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Systematic Review

Reviewing global suicide rates via X, Y, and Z perspectives

[version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]
PUBLISHED 01 Oct 2024
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS AWAITING PEER REVIEW

Abstract

Global suicide rates owing to disaster impacts have been confusing because of varied and unclear results. This study aimed to investigate how suicides have occurred worldwide during disasters. The methodology used included a systematic literature review and comparative analysis. The disaster exacerbation (X, bad human nature, or suicide rate rise) perspective was compared with the disaster resilience (Y, good human nature, or suicide rate fall) perspective to extract disaster ecology (Z, neutral human nature, or suicide rate fluctuation) perspective from international leaders, government officials, researchers, and disaster victims. A major theme was that the four stakeholders would adopt the Z perspective based on the fusion of X and Y perspectives (leading to X+Y=Z), while embracing heterogeneous research, proactive and long-term strategies, education, and so on. This study relied heavily on the large-scale dynamics of suicide rates than previous studies.

Keywords

comparative analysis; psychological disorder; disaster exacerbation; disaster resilience; disaster ecology

Introduction

Owing to the numerous contextual factors involved and the constantly shifting environment, the global suicide issue has proven extremely complex (Go et al., 2024: 1-11). An estimated 703,000 individuals commit suicide annually because of various anthropogenic and natural disasters. The precise number of suicides would exceed this figure if cases that were underreported or incorrectly classified were also included. Approximately 23% of suicides occur in high-income nations, whereas 77% occur in middle- or low-income nations (WHO, 2023). Suicide has become a widespread health concern, and some have even called it a pandemic.

While it may not fully explain complex suicide reasons or provide strategies to prevent suicide, the category of suicide rates has undoubtedly been a key signal for the prevalence of psychological disorders in the field of disaster management (Lund et al., 2023: 1-10). Suicide rates serve as a gauge of the severity of critical situations and help direct future guidance on suicide factors and prevention. The identification of suicide rates helps maintain disaster awareness at elevated levels. Macro-perspectives of suicide rates are useful for examining patterns in suicide and, hence, support cross-national comparisons.

Numerous individuals and organizations have produced divergent results when discussing suicide rates in relation to disasters (da Cunha Varella et al., 2024: 1-10). To elucidate this, one significant group of stakeholders maintained a numerical increase in suicide rates because of unfavorable variables. They have vindicated the danger of psychological disorders as the main factor in suicide. By contrast, another group provided evidence of a decline in suicide rates by citing their own data. They also referred to disaster awareness and treatment. However, a few people have argued that suicide rates remain unchanged before and after disasters (Rodrigo et al., 2009: 179-180).

For example, the World Health Organization (WHO) (2021) maintained that the suicide rate among men was higher than that among women by 2.3 times (WHO, 2021: 4-6). Even today, the WHO website supports this pattern, probably because men have easier access to lethal methods than women. Moreover, while relying on meta-analyses worldwide, a group of researchers emphasized that women experienced three times higher rates of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts than men (Karimi et al., 2022: 100-101). Several individuals become confused and perplexed. Consequently, a thorough investigation of “How have major stakeholders dealt with the issue of suicide rates via the subject of disasters?" was the research question posed in this study.

This study aims to review suicide rates at the global level to determine the goal of disaster management. Three distinctive approaches, to include disaster exacerbation (suicide-rate increase), disaster resilience (suicide-rate decrease), and disaster ecology (suicide-rate variability) perspectives from international leaders, government officials, researchers, and disaster victims have been compared. A key theme is that these four stakeholders will pursue a disaster ecology perspective after combining disaster exacerbation and disaster resilience perspectives. They will continue to address heterogeneous research, proactive management, long-term strategies, and emergency education, based on the effects of disaster ecology.

Literature review

Fundamental concepts and statistics

Suicide as a public health crisis may occur anywhere, regardless of national boundaries. Suicide (in the form of drinking chemicals, hanging, firearms, burning charcoals, jumping from rooftops, etc.) is defined as an act of intentionally or voluntarily taking one’s own life. The suicide rate worldwide in 2019 was 9.2 (WHO, 2022: 34-35). The suicide rate, also known as the suicide mortality rate, is the number of people who die by suicide per 100,000 individuals annually. Suicide rates were computed by dividing the annual number of suicide deaths in a country by the entire population, and then multiplying the result by 100,000. Contrary to popular belief, suicide rates are not expressed as percentages but as numbers.

In the 21st century, certain countries and regions have shown much higher rates than others. Lesotho (72.4), Guyana (40.3), Eswatini (29.4), South Korea (28.6), Kiribati (28.3), Micronesia (28.2), Lithuania (26.1), Suriname (25.4), Russia (25.1), South Africa (23.5), and other nations had the highest suicide rates. The regions with the highest suicide rates are Europe (12.8), South-East Asia (10.1), the Americas (9.6), the Western Pacific (8.7), Africa (6.9), and the East Mediterranean (5.9) (WHO, 2024). The number of people who considered suicide was far higher than the actual number of suicidal deaths.

All disasters—natural and man-made—involve human casualties, monetary losses, and psychological distress. In addition, since suicide is a tragic act that has horrible repercussions for victims, all suicides may be classified as man-made emergencies (or general disasters) for the purposes of this study. In other words, disasters (including natural hazards and manmade emergencies) lead to both physical (e.g., human loss and economic damage) and social impacts (e.g., mental disorders, injustice, etc.). Considering the above facts, the likelihood of suicide has increased by more than 20 times for those with depression than for those without symptoms (IASP, 2024).

Previous research

Research on suicide or its rate has been robust, considering how many researchers across multiple disciplines have recently studied the subject in relation to the occurrence of various disasters (e.g., coronavirus infection, war, tsunamis, and trauma) (Safarpour et al., 2022: 14-18; Reifels et al., 2024: 1-10). These disciplines included emergency management, criminology, medical science, psychology, psychiatry, demography, and sociology. However, there have been several variations in the precise suicide rates found in different studies or cases. Therefore, this study merits further investigation into global suicide rate trends.

While researching the issue of motivation, McGregor (1960) published his book “The Human Side of Enterprise,” in which he proposed theories X and Y (McGregor, 1960). The psychologist claimed that Theory X presupposed that humans would need a certain degree of control and compulsion in the workplace because they inherently detested work and attempted to avoid it. However, Theory Y indicates that individuals do not require extra supervision to execute their jobs because they are willing (or naturally willing) to work for their employers. In summary, Theory X assumes that human nature is good (or positive), whereas Theory Y holds that human nature is bad (or negative).

Ouchi (1981) presented Theory Y for its American counterparts after studying Japanese corporate management techniques and associated cultures in the 1970s and the 1980s (Ouchi, 1981). At that time, Japanese employers offered their employees lifetime employment in private settings. Employees would prefer to remain devoted to their bosses in exchange for loyalty. Thereby, Ouchi did not dictate that human instincts are inherently good or bad. He believed that human instincts are neutral or void. Regarding the token, the researcher stressed that people’s workplace behavior, either positive or negative, is determined by their educational background. Specifically, he upholds the value of education for individuals in an ever-changing environment.

By observing suicide rates globally because of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic in 2019, Martinez-Ales et al. (2023) maintained that tracking suicide patterns would be critical to prevent potential suicides (Martinez-Ales et al., 2023: 283-300). Researchers have cited variations in location, time, and socio-demography to concentrate on shifts in suicide patterns. After the pandemic, suicide rates often declined or remained unchanged, but later rose in several countries. The researchers concluded that variations in socioeconomic vulnerability and coronavirus transmission were the reasons for the ongoing change in suicide rates.

Onie et al. (2024) investigated the challenges associated with obtaining relevant suicide data in Indonesia (Onie et al., 2024: 1-10). They concluded that there were restrictions on the nation’s capacity to access suicide statistics after examining suicide data from five main sources: the WHO, police, sample registration system, province survey, and death registry. These researchers considered the problem of underreporting suicides to be the most crucial threshold. They stated that various provinces had their own views that were culturally sensitive, which disrupted the methods used to gather suicide data.

Although suicide is a major socio-health concern globally, Diez-Gomez et al. (2024) highlighted the lack of universal strategies for school-aged children. The researchers suggested their own universal program, the PositivaMente program, as a means of preventing suicide through educational settings for students aged 14-16 years (Diez-Gomez et al., 2024: 1-19). Although it was premature to assess the program’s efficacy, the researchers insisted on applying the same elements to all students. This program covered topics such as suicide awareness, risk factors, stress management, and logical thinking that have been highlighted in relevant prior research.

Characteristics of this study

Considering that this study aims to provide a large flow (or transition) of suicide rates, the features of large-scale dynamics have been reflected in related theoretical processes. Large-scale dynamics refer to broad perspectives, trends, patterns, shifts, and movements surrounding the issue (Bures et al., 2023: 123-125). In contrast to micro-perspectives, large-scale dynamics deliver a comprehensive framework. Similarly, it offers a thorough understanding of the topic by appreciating the interactions among several variables. Specifically, large-scale dynamics forecast the evolution of suicide rates when disasters affect the public.

This study suggests three unique approaches in this field. The first two approaches are the foundation of today’s suicide rates, whereas future concerns are the focus of the third approach. Disaster exacerbation theory suggests that suicide rates typically increase when different types of disasters strike (Rodriguez-Rodriguez et al., 2023: 17-33). This perspective is reinforced by Theory X, or good human nature. According to disaster resilience perspective, suicide rates have undoubtedly declined during calamities (Han et al., 2022: 1-10). Theory Y, or bad human nature, supports this perspective. The disaster ecology perspective predicts different suicide rates based on how disasters are handled (Lester, 2021: 89-91). This concept, like the role of ecology, is embraced by Theory Z, or untainted human nature.

Methods

Systematic literature review

This study partially employed a systematic literature review (see Figure 1), with qualitative text data interpreted flexibly in the relevant subsections. There is a lack of accurate quantitative information regarding suicide rates and associated statistics worldwide. According to the WHO (2023), only 80 of its 194 member states have implemented a sufficiently comprehensive suicide registration system. A systematic literature review is useful because it allows a thorough analysis and synthesis of earlier studies on the relationship between global suicide rates and disasters. This study identified the commonalities, trends, and patterns observed in previous research.

f5f86f67-58dd-47a1-bb80-392e6a6c4884_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Analytical frame.

If a text had a significant correlation with both suicide rates and disasters, this was the first criterion used to determine whether it should be included in this study. Several databases, including ScienceDirect, ProQuest, Google, and Sage Knowledge, have created a variety of research articles, books, government documents, websites, and other materials on the subject. The second criterion was fair distribution in terms of years, areas, and disasters. Similarly, the most recent research paper was included when many studies addressed suicide rates during the COVID-19 pandemic. As there are many studies on wealthy countries, suicide rates in underdeveloped countries have also been included. In addition, because there are few publications on the subject, older writings on suicide rates during wars have been added.

Comparative analysis

Given the two primary options (X and Y) available to address the issue of suicide rates, a thorough comparative analysis will help (to) present a distinct alternative (Z) by comparing the two (Sherif et al., 2024: 459-463). In other words, a comparative analysis proposes similarities and differences from the Z perspective after examining the similarities and differences between the X and Y perspectives. In summary, the comparative analysis revealed a similarity and three differences. Comparative analysis should be an inevitable way to realize that it is to aid this study; beginning to focus on two relevant patterns and then foster a growth (or an alternative) by upgrading strategies.

The same four comparable analytical units are used while comparing the first two patterns and then presenting a third trend. Comparable analytical units for the three intended comparable analytical categories should be the same to facilitate a systematic comparison (Manjo, 2021: 14-16). The major stakeholders on the subject were also fully included in the four units. While international leaders collaborated with active participants to organize numerous suicide prevention initiatives, government officials worked on national and local policies. Researchers have investigated the relationship between suicides and disasters in their own places and disaster victims face the reality of suicide.

Results: Comparing two suicide rates

Disaster exacerbation (X) perspective

International leaders

A few United Nations (UN) agencies, such as the WHO, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP), have leaned toward the possibility that suicide rates may rise during disasters, while acknowledging the difficult reality of human life as well as their own empirical data (Cuthbertson et al., 2022: 1-13). Referring firmly to the multifaceted nature of suicide, these agencies have argued that a holistic intervention approach is essential. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) are two of the numerous international nongovernmental organizations (INGOs) concerned about rising suicide rates.

Government officials

To lessen the impact of disasters, many national and local governments, including those of Canada, Norway, Finland, Cuba, Guyana, and South Korea, have accepted that suicide rates rise after various disasters. They presumed that individuals tend to commit suicide when faced with hazards such as climate change, man-made threats, and other dangers. In addition, they believe that disaster impacts have lasted far longer than anticipated by most people (Cartier, 2021). Therefore, these governments have changed related policies such as long-term mental health services, post-disaster help, disaster relief initiatives, and the equitable distribution of pre-existing aid programs.

Researchers

Depending on their research methodologies, such as quantitative analysis, systematic review, and meta-analysis, researchers have examined and validated the proportionate relationship between suicide rates and disaster impacts in several places. Many have explored the important outcomes of disasters as their theories have developed. Accordingly, Pathirathna et al. (2022) examined 33,345 suicide deaths that occurred globally owing to the COVID-19 outbreak (Pathirathna et al., 2022: 1-15). They emphasized that unanticipated human behavior changes brought on by the pandemic, including social isolation and lockdowns, were the primary causes of the rise in suicide rates.

Disaster victims

Compared with locals who have not been affected by disasters, those who have experienced the immediate aftermath of catastrophes respond more reactively to various challenges (Kim and Lee, 2023: 910-912). Numerous variables around disaster victims, including negative aspects of human nature, psychological damage and loss, and financial trouble, may contribute to explaining this phenomenon. Similar variations in suicide rates have been observed among disaster victims based on subjective risk perceptions. In conclusion, disaster victims with retroactive risk perceptions commit suicide more often than those with proactive risk perceptions.

Disaster resilience (Y) perspective

International leaders

Through the development of international community cohesion, mental health advocacy, international humanitarian relief, dialogue, and peace promotion, international leadership has decreased suicide rates. With assistance from faith-based organizations, suicide rates have significantly decreased, particularly during times of war (WHO, 2018: 1-4). For instance, while the precise suicide rate in this context has not yet been made public, the suicide rate in Ukraine (involved in the war against Russia) is believed to have declined significantly, similar to what happened during the Sri Lankan civil conflict between 1983 and 2009 (Aida, 2020: 1-20).

Government officials

Several nations have seen a decline in suicide rates because of government emergency responses and associated public policies. Recently, Australia has been severely affected by a series of cascading disasters such as fires, floods, and droughts. A few years ago, Australia had a higher suicide rate than other countries. Nonetheless, the suicide rate has declined as the drought returns over time (Edwards et al., 2024: 4-5). From 1990 to 2006, the average suicide rate in the United States was 0.56 per 100,000 individuals. However, the number of Americans who committed suicide fell by 0.11 per 100,000 individuals shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City (Mezuk et al., 2009: 485-484).

Researchers

The disproportionate relationship between suicide rates and disaster impacts in various locations has been frequently discussed by researchers. To evaluate suicide rates before and after (i.e., 9-15 months) the COVID-19 outbreak, the suicide rates across 33 countries were examined (Pirkis et al., 2022: 1-19). The researchers were unable to locate any evidence of rising suicide rates in most of these countries; according to scientific evidence, suicide rates have decreased during this pandemic. Suicide rates occasionally exceeded expectations, although this was not always the case in the countries that were the focus.

Disaster victims

Suicide rates have decreased among disaster victims who have taken proactive measures to manage the impacts of disasters. For instance, earthquakes have often destroyed parts of Japan, including the Great East Japan region in 2011, Hanshin-Awaji and Kobe city in 1995, and Niigata-Chuetsu in 2004 (Orui et al., 2014: 465-466). For approximately two or three years following the occurrence of earthquakes, male victims in those locations did not exhibit an increase in suicide rates; rather, suicide rates decreased. Numerous male victims relocated as they recovered from the catastrophe. Most importantly, several male victims actively engaged in community networks while building trusting relationships with others. They were also provided access to mental health services.

Implications: Disaster ecology (Z) perspective

Recalling that most suicides are undoubtedly acts of self-harm, the problem of suicides as they relate to disasters has primarily been an individual act (SAMHSA, 2020: 16-31). Numerous individuals seriously consider ending their lives because of psychological and physical factors, and alcohol abuse. They have come to their own conclusion as to whether they are committing suicide. Moreover, such people react to their own feelings, experiences, ideas, or unique situations while clinging on to their sense of self-determination, personal autonomy, or even individual rights. Suicide is clearly rooted in individual freedom.

Given that suicidal behavior is a sign of discord between individuals and society, the issue of suicide via the category of disasters has been directly or indirectly attributed to the interaction of numerous social elements (Durkheim, 2002: 95-258). Suicides are symptoms of dysfunction in the society to which the victim(s) belonged. Suicidal behavior has been linked to factors such as geography, politics, climate change, and other abruptly changing environments, in addition to individual psychology. Another factor contributing to the large number of suicides among those involved in disaster management is the collective breakdown of society.

Recognizing that disaster impacts on suicide rates have fluctuated or may fluctuate over time, they are closely associated with the topic of heterogeneous studies (Ornell et al., 2022: 629-633). Heterogeneous research incorporates a variety of elements in its theoretical process, as opposed to homogeneous research, which comprises the same elements as the research issue. When calculating suicide rates, demographic, social, economic, cultural, and other factors have a complex influence on research results. Specific examples include age, sex, race, educational level, economic status, and regional characteristics. In summary, heterogeneous research reveals a degree of variability in research results, which is greater than the sampling error.

The effective use of heterogeneous research in the field of disaster management can yield numerous benefits for suicide rates (Linden and Honekopp, 2021: 360-361). In essence, heterogeneous research is by its very nature neither positive (or separation) nor negative (or selective). Instead, it affects what researchers (among others) choose to learn through research analysis. Researchers may communicate with each other for more information, particularly when they arrive at diverse conclusions. In cases where heterogeneous research does not explain suicide rates, it may be viewed as a lack of understanding of the phenomenon. Heterogeneous research reveals underappreciated perspectives within a discipline.

Based on large-scale dynamics, the four stakeholders will not simply choose one perspective after comparing and recognizing disaster exacerbation and disaster resilience perspectives in the current field. They may adopt a fresh perspective on disaster ecology that is constantly evolving (see Table 1). The attempt made by each of these three perspectives to begin with the assumption of their own human nature—bad, good, and void—as a base is a glaring similarity. In summary, the emphases on human nature were identical. The names given to each approach—disaster exacerbation, resilience, and ecology—indicate the differences among these viewpoints. This has several implications.

Table 1. Potential strategies for disaster ecology perspective.

UnitsAppropriate strategies
1. International leaders

  • - While scientifically referring to both increase and decrease in suicide rates, UN agencies (e.g., WHO, UNDRR, UNDP, etc.), INGOs (e.g., IFRC, IASP, etc.), and faith-based organizations will construct a new worldwide vision on suicide rates and then work on their own assignment.

2. Government officials

  • - Canada, Norway, Finland, Cuba, Guyana, South Korea, Australia, the United States, and others will require a level of flexibility in implementing both national policy changes and emergency response activities altogether.

3. Researchers

  • - If growing suicide rates are observed in any location during the overall downward trend in suicide rates (or vice versa), researchers will be alert and diligent in conducting additional studies for suicide prevention under the frame of ever-changing suicide rates.

4. Disaster victims

  • - Disaster victims will see differences between retroactive and proactive measures and then support proactive ones that prevent catastrophes and raise disaster awareness through a variety of channels.

By pointing out that this study has covered the X, Y, and Z perspectives collectively, the shift toward the disaster ecology approach as a literature contribution will help expand the body of the current literature. Nowadays, many researchers have discussed how suicide rates might fluctuate amid calamities (Stack, 2021: 1-13). However, a glaring gap exists in the body of current literature. This study attempts to fill this gap by methodically presenting three distinct perspectives in sequential order. Moreover, it contributes to the advancement of knowledge on multifaceted perspectives and provides a dynamic approach within the theoretical area.

Given the reality of suicide rates, the transition toward the Z perspective offers significant advantages. Proactive management to address the suicide incidence is one of its main advantages. Mainly because of the possibility of change or improvement in suicide rates with proper disaster management, stakeholders will address the issue more proactively or beforehand than at present (Liu et al., 2019). In other words, stakeholders will not wait to act upon a suicide that occurs in the field (a major component of retroactive management). Rather, they try to use almost all their power to either anticipate or stop suicide in many areas.

Through an unclear evolution of suicide rate trends, either the X or Y perspective seeks to accomplish its objective. In this context, a shift to the disaster ecology perspective will help the field’s long-term strategy, as it considers the more equitable development of mutual trust or harmony among stakeholders through flexible risk identification and pre-emptive interventions (Chen et al., 2024: 1-21). Building mutual trust can take considerable time. Similarly, the disaster ecology perspective maintains long-term planning, considering that lowering suicide rates through the Z perspective cannot be accomplished without sustainability planning.

The disaster education sector will adapt its current curriculum to accommodate the implications of the new Z perspective. Teachers may offer fresh and pertinent materials within their local environment, when addressing suicide or its rates in the field (Mony, 2018: 1-15). To clarify, educators will assign advanced knowledge once they have begun teaching the rationale for tracking suicide rate statistics (such as trends, increases, decreases, and fluctuations). Moreover, educators will not discuss the same response, but rather about one specific to each country or region based on the suicide rate. They continue to state that all of these will require a degree of coordination and cooperation among stakeholders.

Conclusion

This study aimed to describe the patterns of global suicide rates caused by disasters. A systematic literature review and comparative analysis were used to discuss the following topics: a key research question, major concepts, prior studies, four stakeholders (i.e., international leaders, government officials, researchers, and disaster victims), challenges (comparison between disaster exacerbation and disaster resilience perspectives), and alternatives (disaster ecology perspective). By acknowledging sequential theoretical advancements from the X, Y, and Z perspectives, this study has fulfilled its initial goal.

Similarities among the three perspectives are their assumed efforts toward human nature in the initial phase, whereas the three differences are disaster exacerbation, disaster resilience, and disaster ecology, analogous to the role of nomenclature. The overarching theme is that the four stakeholders will merge their perspectives, X and Y, before adopting Z. The four stakeholders will cooperate on scientific vision, policy changes and emergency response, additional research, and retroactive and proactive measures sequentially on the way to implementing relevant actions. They will continue to support social responsibility, heterogeneous research, long-term strategies, disaster education, and so on, based on the effects of the Z perspective.

The strength of this study is its large-scale dynamics, as it has attempted to incorporate all pertinent variables, stakeholders, and changes in suicide rates into the global field of disaster management. In summary, compared to other studies, this study provides a more thorough description of suicide rates. However, like many suicide research articles, its potential constraints are tied to the dearth of high-quality or readily available suicide data from multiple regions. Furthermore, this study was largely limited by the criteria of comparative analysis. Specifically, relativity occasionally makes the significance of the desired traits less apparent.

Relying on the structure of this study as a guide, other researchers will further explore their own suicide studies. For individuals whose general trends in suicide rates are still unclear, the sequential development of the X, Y, and Z perspectives will offer a concise and understandable overview. While addressing the limitations of this study, researchers will examine ways to complete trustworthy databases of suicide rates with the assistance of numerous people. They will continue to explore ways of reducing the degree of relativity in comparative text interpretations. All potential attempts will help identify the exact suicide rates and thus achieve the goal of suicide prevention in the field.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval and informed consent were not required for this study as there were no participants.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 01 Oct 2024
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Ha KM. Reviewing global suicide rates via X, Y, and Z perspectives [version 1; peer review: awaiting peer review]. F1000Research 2024, 13:1112 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.153928.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status:
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
AWAITING PEER REVIEW
?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 01 Oct 2024
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.