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.
The manuscript, which examines the impact of containment policies and mobility on COVID-19 cases in Chile, Singapore, South Korea, and Israel using a structural equation model, provides valuable insights into the effectiveness of various strategies employed by these countries to control the spread of the virus. The methodology employed is robust, and the findings are significant, contributing to the existing literature on COVID-19 mitigation measures.
The reviewer commended the clarity and rigor of your analysis, highlighting the comprehensive nature of the study. The manuscript was deemed well-organized and logically structured, making it easy for readers to follow the methodology and results. The inclusion of multiple countries adds to the generalizability of the findings and enhances the relevance of the study on a global scale.
The manuscript may be accepted as per the journal policy.
no comments
we written. The author has did the changes as per my previous review.
No Comments
Well written. I think ready to publish this article.
Overall, this manuscript is well-written and provides an interesting analysis of the impact of containment policies and mobility on COVID-19 cases in four different countries. However, there are some areas where the manuscript could be improved:
The objectives could be more clearly defined. While the manuscript aims to understand the impact of containment policies and mobility on COVID-19 cases in the four countries, it would be helpful to specify the exact research questions that are being addressed.
The methodology section should provide more details on the data sources and statistical analyses used. Specifically, the manuscript should explain how the SEM was constructed and which variables were included.
The results section is somewhat brief and could benefit from more elaboration. For example, the manuscript could provide more information on the specific containment policies that were implemented in each country and how these policies affected mobility.
The conclusion could be strengthened by providing more specific recommendations for policymakers. For example, the manuscript could provide specific suggestions for adjusting closure measures or strengthening public education.
Overall, this manuscript provides a valuable contribution to the literature on COVID-19 containment policies and their impact on mobility and cases. However, some revisions are necessary to improve the clarity and depth of the analysis.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
No comments
Introduction and methods (General Comments):
The manuscript provides an overview of the COVID-19 containment policies and their effects on mobility and COVID-19 cases in four countries. The paper presents some interesting research questions and hypotheses. However, the introduction and method section require significant revisions and improvements to provide a clear and concise research rationale and methodology. Some sentences are unclear, contain grammatical errors and do not follow the correct tense. Additionally, the article needs more attention to organization, structure, and unnecessary capitalization.
Detailed Comments (Introduction):
• Lines 47-49: The introduction provides an overview of the COVID-19 situation and the importance of containment policies. However, it would be helpful to provide more specific information regarding the gaps in the literature or the research question(s) that the paper seeks to address. The introduction lacks a clear research rationale that will capture the reader's attention and interest.
• Lines 52-69: While it is useful to provide information about the COVID-19 situation in Chile, Singapore, South Korea, and Israel, this information seems excessive and is not well integrated into the introduction. It might be helpful to introduce these countries and their strategies in the later sections of the paper when discussing results or in a separate section on related work.
• Lines 70-73: The research question is not explicitly stated in the introduction. It would be helpful to have a clear and concise statement of the research question, which will help readers to understand the paper's objectives.
• Lines 89-90: It is not clear how the proposed hypothesis addresses the gap in the literature. More context is required to support the research hypothesis.
Method:
• Lines 125-139: The authors provide some information about the variables and data sources used in the paper. However, it is not clear how the authors selected these four countries for analysis or how they ensure that these countries are representative of the global population. It might be useful to provide more context on why these countries were selected for analysis.
• Lines 132-133: The authors need to provide more information on the Google Community Mobility Report and how it is used to measure mobility. The authors should provide more details on the measures used to calculate mobility and how it relates to COVID-19 containment policies.
• Lines 142-144: The authors need to provide more details on how the structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted. The paper should describe the statistical procedures used to test the hypotheses and how the SEM model was validated. It is not clear how the authors used SEM to measure causal relationships between latent variable constructs.
Results:
Line 147: The introduction of the national trend of COVID-19 pandemic is abrupt. Consider adding a sentence or two to provide context and background information on why the national trend is important to the study.
Line 149: Consider rephrasing "mutant strain" to a more specific term or specifying which mutant strain is being referred to.
Line 154: Consider rephrasing "remain largely unchanged" to a more specific term.
Line 158: Consider rephrasing "sharp increase and sharp decline" to a more specific term.
Line 160: Consider rephrasing "restrictions on internal movement" to a more specific term.
Line 161-171: The descriptions of the trends in mobility data could be more concise and clearer. Consider using bullet points or tables to present the information.
Line 173-174: The units for the total cases per million are not clear. Consider adding units (e.g., cases per million people).
Line 184: Consider providing a brief overview of what structural equation modeling (SEM) is and why it is important to the study.
Line 188: Consider rephrasing "COVID-19 cases" to "cumulative COVID-19 cases".
Line 191: Consider rephrasing "positive and moderate" to a more specific term.
Line 196: Consider specifying the range and magnitude of the correlation values.
Line 198-200: Consider providing more details on how the measurement models were tested and what the modifications were.
Line 208: Consider rephrasing "either good or within acceptable limits" to a more specific term.
Line 225: Consider rephrasing "significantly different from zero" to a more specific term.
Discussion: Discussion:
General feedback: The discussion section of the manuscript presents an overview of the containment policies, mobility, and COVID-19 cases in four countries. It also describes the results of the structural equation model (SEM) used to analyze the relationship between containment policies, mobility, and COVID-19 cases. However, there are several areas for improvement in terms of organization, clarity, and coherence. The discussion lacks a clear statement of the research gap or issue that the study aimed to address. The paragraph and sentence structure are sometimes convoluted and may be improved to facilitate better understanding. The discussion would benefit from more detail, elaboration, and explanation of the findings, and additional references.
Detailed feedback:
• Line 234: Specify the main objective or research question of the study to provide context and a clear direction for the discussion.
• Line 236-239: This paragraph is confusing and may benefit from rephrasing. It is not clear what "mitigation strategy" means, and the sentence structure is convoluted. Consider breaking it down into simpler sentences and explaining the terms.
• Line 240-244: Provide more details on the hypotheses proposed and the targeted recommendations for responding to COVID-19. What are the implications of the SEM results for policy and practice?
• Line 246-249: The connection between mobility and COVID-19 cases needs further clarification. How does mobility relate to COVID-19 cases, and what is the rationale for including mobility as a variable in the model?
• Line 253-259: This paragraph lacks clarity and coherence. It is not clear what "national disaster" means or how it relates to home quarantine. Also, the sentence "Since Chile began mass vaccination in February 2021, mobility and COVID-19 cases have increased" needs more elaboration and explanation. How does vaccination affect mobility and COVID-19 cases?
• Line 260-268: This paragraph could be better structured for clarity. Consider separating the content into two or more paragraphs to improve readability. Also, provide more context and elaboration on the "traffic light model" and the reasons behind the full opening of Israel's borders.
• Line 269-274: The discussion of Singapore's response to COVID-19 is informative, but the connection to the main objectives of the study needs to be clearer. Also, consider elaborating on the reasons why Singapore's containment policies have not changed much compared to the other countries.
• Line 276-287: This paragraph is informative but needs more elaboration and context. For example, what specific mitigation strategies did South Korea adopt, and how did they impact COVID-19 cases? Also, the discussion of the turning point of COVID-19 in South Korea lacks clarity and coherence. Consider revising and rephrasing the paragraph for clarity.
• Line 290-299: The discussion of the SEM model results is informative, but the paragraph could be better structured for clarity. Consider breaking it down into smaller paragraphs and using subheadings to distinguish the different findings.
• Line 300-317: This paragraph provides some useful insights into the relationship between containment policies and COVID-19 cases, but it lacks detail and elaboration. Consider providing more examples and references to support the claims. Also, how do the findings relate to the main objectives of the study?
• Line 319-336: This paragraph needs more elaboration and context. What are the implications of the moderate negative correlation between containment policies and mobility? Also, the discussion of the contradictory paths of person correlation and SEM needs more clarification and explanation.
• Line 351-363: The conclusion provides a useful summary of the study's main findings, but it could be more detailed and explicit. What are the implications of the study for policy and practice, and how do the findings contribute to addressing the research gap
Q1. 51 Mention the reference.
Q2. 64 Mention the reference.
Q3. 68 Mention the reference.
Q 4: Add rationale of study
Q5. 128: why you have taken only these categories? justification.
Q6. 132: How much data is valid?
Q7. 265: Mention the Reference.
Q8. 350: Mention the strength of the study?
Q9. 350: Mention the limitations and recommendations?
Why COVID-19 vaccination status not included?
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.