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.
Thanks for addressing the comments.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Paula Soares, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
There are few more corrections needed, please revise and resubmit.
() re individual contributions of all authors: I assume that this will be visible in the final paper; so far this information is not included.
() https://github.com/andrfish/NorthCOVID19, Video Generation Script for the COVID Crushers,
introductory comment:
“This script takes input from NorthCOVID-19 (see model here) and produces a video animation (see sample_format.pdf) of the results. The file "sample_output.csv" is an example of what the output will look like, "sample_parameters.json" is an example saved file of the parameters used, and "sample_results.json" is an example of the results output to the website from the simulation.”
-> none of the links work - ‘NorthCOVID-19’ , ‘model’;
for some of the pointers there are no links given at all, eg. sample_format.pdf, sample_results.json, sample_parameters.json.
() “The result was a video”
thanks for adding the video generation feature to the original website https://covid.datalab.science; I suggest to move the link to this website, hidden so far in a footnote, to a more prominent position.
() “Please do not leave this page, the generation may take up to 10 minutes and the download will start automatically.”
-> having to wait up to 10’ (it actually took almost as long) is a rather long delay for getting something simplified compared to what I immediately get and comprises actually more information.
() the last slide in the generated “video” (is more a sequence of slides) needs some normalisation to make the results visible.
in summary,
I’m still amazed how many words one can spend for explaining and justifying the design of a simplified user interface. I personally would prefer the direct output as offered by the original website https://covid.datalab.science; not to say that I somehow feel offended that I - as a user- is considered not to be able to understand what the original diagrams are telling me.
But I’m happy to accept that I might not belong to the actual target group of the tool.
N/A
N/A
none
Your paper has been reviewed by the experts. They have major concerns to be addressed. therefore, you are requested to carefully look into the reviewer's concerns and carefully incorporate them before resubmission.
I’m impressed how many words can be spent for explaining and justifying the design of a simplified user interface. The paper reads very well, however, I can’t really assess its value as the videos themselves, not to speak of the system generating the videos on the fly, are not available, in contrast to the original website, https://covid.datalab.science, for which the simplified user interface has been developed for.
I suggest to add a few words explaining how the outcome of the reported work will be used/made available in the future.
no comment
Can't be assessed as the main result of the paper (a video-generating add-on to a given web interface) is not available.
This paper has nine authors; it could be helpful to see how each of the authors contributed to the reported work.
There are no raw data.
minor:
line 119: there seems to be something missing after ‘section’;
The authors examine the outputs of an epidemic model called “NorthCOVID-19” along with its web interface to see what issues it may have when being interpreted by the general public. They identified three main issues that could cause anxiety and confusion and focused on creating a solution that would thoroughly explain the results in an ethical, easy-to-understand format. They built audio and video methods including using AI to communicate the epidemic model results.
This is a well-written paper that I recommend to be accepted.
The experimental design is clear with sufficient details to reproduce the experiments and results.
Conclusions are well-stated.
Overall it looks interesting.
However, I am not too sure if the assumptions made are true.
Assuming that the proposed model is for public use. I don't think so. You cannot find the model anymore.
One needs to provide some facts about how much the model was used by the general public.
How independent the study can be if the first author of this paper is the second author of the published model paper?
A sample of 40 is not too bad, but not knowing who the participants are in real trouble.
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.