Review History

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.

View examples of open peer review.


  • The initial submission of this article was received on July 15th, 2020 and was peer-reviewed by 2 reviewers and the Academic Editor.
  • The Academic Editor made their initial decision on August 10th, 2020.
  • The first revision was submitted on August 24th, 2020 and was reviewed by the Academic Editor.
  • The article was Accepted by the Academic Editor on August 28th, 2020.

Version 0.2 (accepted)

· Aug 28, 2020 · Academic Editor


The revisions have adequately addressed the concerns of the reviewers and overall improved the manuscript further.

Version 0.1 (original submission)

· Aug 10, 2020 · Academic Editor

Minor Revisions

Please particularly take into account the comments of reviewer 1 regarding the discussion of chemical analogies to extended SIR models. Also, all subsection titles should be capitalized.

Reviewer 1 ·

Basic reporting

no comment

Experimental design

The manuscript examines the analogy between differential equations and their solutions in chemical kinetics and epidemiological models. This goal is accomplished satisfactorily. The discussion could be further improved by giving engineering/chemical kinetics analogues to the extensions of the SIR model, if such analogues exist.
Perhaps quarantine in the SEQIJR model could be related to the presence of an absorber material in a reactor?
I am unsure how time-varying parameters and births, death, and loss of immunity could be related to the chemical kinetics/engineering, but perhaps the author has an idea.

Validity of the findings

no comment

Additional comments

I found the analogy between kinetic and epidemiological models very unexpected, but also very interesting. The manuscript presents this analogy in a very instructive way and I think it is a valuable read for anyone involved in physical chemistry in some way.

Reviewer 2 ·

Basic reporting

This paper offers a pedagogical introduction to the Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered (SIR) epidemic model for readers familiar with chemical kinetic models. By drawing analogies between chemical kinetic and compartmental epidemic models, the Author aims to foster the exchange of ideas between disparate research communities.

The paper is well-organized, clearly written, and technically accurate. I would be happy to share a published version with my colleagues to use in lectures for senior undergraduate chemical engineering students. Moreover, the highlighted extensions of the simple SIR model may serve to stimulate research professionals in the area of chemical kinetics to seek opportunities to apply their expertise in “new” domains.

Experimental design

This paper is a review of prior work.

Validity of the findings

The presentation of the SIR model is clear and accurate.

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.