All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
All the reviewers' concerns have been correctly addressed in this new revised version of the text.
Regarding the comments of reviewer #1, there are some points which are not correctly addressed, which you should assess in a new revised version of the text:
1. Where is the reference to the supplemental material in the text?
2. "It is unclear whether there was a systematic search for data, although the lack of a search strategy would indicate that this has not happened. This would be the expected standard to address the study questions. The authors need to clearly state why they haven't conducted a systematic review."
Although I agree with the response, no change have been done into the text.
3. "It is likely that the downward trend in COVID-19 death rate is multi-factorial, potentially contributed to by all the stated hypotheses. The authors state this and indicate the potential strength of support for each hypothesis. However, they also need to discuss the limitations of the study given the reliance on incomplete data. It would also be useful to discuss similar issues with previous newly-described infections."
Not correctly addressed.
See general comments.
See general comments.
See general comments.
The article has presented clearly and in detail to the readers. My questions have been satisfactorily resolved, so I suggest accepting this version.
After assessing your manuscript and the reviewers' comments, I think your work has scientific merit to be published in PeerJ, once some issues are solved by you. Please, see their reports below this letter.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review comments are addressed in a rebuttal letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. It is a common mistake to address reviewer questions in the rebuttal letter but not in the revised manuscript. If a reviewer raised a question then your readers will probably have the same question so you should ensure that the manuscript can stand alone without the rebuttal letter. Directions on how to prepare a rebuttal letter can be found at: https://peerj.com/benefits/academic-rebuttal-letters/ #]
The paper is, overall, well-written. However, the authors have assumed that the reader already has a relatively high background knowledge. It would be helpful if the introduction also explained some of the basics about recording of deaths from COVID-19 and the issues associated with this. In lines 36/37 it is stated that "an estimate of true death rate is rather difficult for several reasons." However, those reasons are not outlined (which they should be).
All terms should be defined, e.g. CFR, IFR, Rt.
The headings of the different hypotheses should be carried over to the results section as well. At the moment, the reader needs to refer back to earlier sections in order to remember which hypothesis is being discussed.
The experimental design is unusual in that a list of hypotheses is being tested using publicly-available information.
While the data sources have been identified in the main text, the actual original methodology is outlined in the supplementary files. I am unsure whether this is consistent with the style of the journal, but there at least needs to be some reference to the supplementary files.
It is unclear whether there was a systematic search for data, although the lack of a search strategy would indicate that this has not happened. This would be the expected standard to address the study questions. The authors need to clearly state why they haven't conducted a systematic review.
It is likely that the downward trend in COVID-19 death rate is multi-factorial, potentially contributed to by all the stated hypotheses. The authors state this and indicate the potential strength of support for each hypothesis. However, they also need to discuss the limitations of the study given the reliance on incomplete data. It would also be useful to discuss similar issues with previous newly-described infections.
The study question is important. This is a potentially useful paper in the context of the ongoing pandemic.
This is an interesting paper, but it will take a lot of modification for this paper
This is an interesting paper, but it will take a lot of modification for this paper
This is an interesting paper, but it will take a lot of modification for this paper
This is an interesting paper, but it will take a lot of modification for this paper. The questions are attached in the pdf file
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.