Peer review

[pangyin2]

Hello! Your paper exhibits a good framework and awaits the addition of a title, author names, and detailed explanations.

Strengths: 1) Your use of a comprehensive dataset to examine the impact of air quality on health outcomes over a significant period is commendable. This provides a solid empirical foundation for your findings.

2) The paper is well-organized, with clear sections that guide the reader through your data, models, results, and discussion efficiently. This structure enhances the readability and accessibility of your complex analysis.

Areas for Improvement: 1) While your model setup and justification are clear, a more detailed discussion on the choice of models, especially the use of Negative Binomial models over alternatives, could strengthen the paper. This would help readers understand the rationale behind model selection in the context of your data's distribution and characteristics.

2) The discussion of results, especially the graphical representation of observed vs. predicted deaths and the effect of air quality on mortality, is insightful. However, expanding on the interpretation of these results, including potential confounders and the implications for policy and practice, would provide deeper insights.

Recommendations: 1) Delve deeper into how your findings can inform public health strategies and policy-making, especially in the context of rising concerns about air quality and health. This could involve exploring interventions that could mitigate adverse health outcomes. 2) Every study has its limitations. Discussing yours, such as potential biases in air quality data or mortality records, and suggesting avenues for future research would round out the paper. This could include examining the impact of other environmental factors or exploring longitudinal studies to assess long-term effects.

[shivankgoel003]

Thanks for your review. We kept in mind the issues you highlighted while writing the final paper.