PART 1: Comments

Please write a few sentences regarding the importance of this manuscript for the scientific community. A minimum of 3-4 sentences may be required for this part. This manuscript addresses a pressing and ongoing issue in Nigeria’s economic landscape – its rising public debt – and provides a timely and policy-relevant evaluation of budget management strategies. While the debt burden has been widely known to all, this study is setting itself unique by not only diagnosing the root causes of debt accumulation in Nigeria, but also by proposing a practical fiscal policy model that is tailored to Nigeria's unique economic conditions. This paper is especially valuable to the policymakers, economists, and development practitioners, because it presents empirically grounded insights into the inefficiencies of existing debt sources and the shortcomings of current management strategies as far is this paper is concerned.

Is the title of the article suitable? (If not please suggest an alternative title) The title of the study clear and focused, not that long, and it reflects both the issue and its unique contribution to this study.

Is the abstract of the article comprehensive? Do you suggest the addition (or deletion) of some points in this section? Please write your suggestions here. The abstract informative. It includes the key elements namely: the problem, objective, method, findings, and recommendations; these are essential for a solid academic abstract.

Is the manuscript scientifically, correct? Please write here. Yes, the manuscript is scientifically correct in its foundational approach, but it would benefit from stronger methodological transparency and analytic depth. These refinements would increase its credibility and suitability for peer-reviewed publication. Just a minor feedback and suggestions:

The methodology section is lacking information on sampling technique, questionnaire validation, and potential biases. What you can do is to add a short explanation of how the 72 participants were selected, whether any pilot testing was done, and how the survey's reliability was ensured. Just provide an explanation in that area.

Although the abstract and objectives mention a "fiscal policy model," it’s not clear whether this model is conceptual, empirical, or prescriptive. What you can do to fix this is clarify what type of model you’re proposing. Perhaps a framework or policy matrix and describe it more in-depth in a dedicated section.

In this paper, only descriptive statistics are reported, and inferential analysis (e.g., chi-square, correlation, regression) is either missing or not contently used. I suggest considering applying at least one inferential method (e.g., logistic regression or ANOVA) to strengthen the validity of the paper’s conclusions, particularly when you link variables like foreign exchange impact and debt sustainability.

Every scientific study has scope and delimitations of the study, but this paper doesn’t mention any. I suggest including a brief acknowledgement of limitations (e.g., sample size, self-report bias, limited generalizability). This helps with showing the readers academic rigor.

Are the references sufficient and recent? If you have suggestions of additional references, please mention them in the review form. This paper includes relevant and mostly recent references. It has a strong base in institutional data and reports.

Is the language/English quality of the article suitable for scholarly communications? Yes, English quality of the article is suitable for scholarly communications.

Optional/General comments Overall, the study is good and beneficial. Just with a few revisions need to make it stronger.

PART 2:

Are there ethical issues in this manuscript? (If yes, Kindly please write down the ethical issues here in detail)

The study has non-sensitive data collection. There are no invasive products involved. There just some clarification you need to double for clarification: I noticed that there there’s no mention of whether the participants gave informed consent or were briefed about the purpose of the study. My suggestion is that add a short sentence in the methodology section that states that participants provided informed consent and were assured of anonymity/confidentiality of their responses.

Are there competing interest issues in this manuscript? I do not see any competing interest issues in this paper.

If plagiarism is suspected, please provide related proofs or web links. There is no plagiarism suspected in this manuscript.

PART 3: Declaration of Competing Interest of the Reviewer:

I declare that I have no competing interest as a reviewer.

Here reviewer should declare his/her competing interest. If nothing to declare he/she can write “I declare that I have no competing interest as a reviewer”

PART 4: Objective Evaluation:

Give OVERALL MARKS you want to give to this manuscript ( Highest: 10 Lowest: 0 )

Guideline: Accept As It Is: (>9-10) Minor Revision: (>8-9) Major Revision: (>7-8) Serious Major revision: (>5-7) Rejected (with repairable deficiencies and may be reconsidered): (>3-5) Strongly rejected (with irreparable deficiencies.): (>0-3) This manuscript is accepted with Minor Revision (>8-9).