Who can go back to work when the COVID-19 pandemic remits?

Luis Angel Hierro; David Cantarero; David Patiño; Daniel Rodríguez-Pérez de Arenaza

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238299

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 2, 2020
9 Jul 2020 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor PONE-D-20-16646 Who can go back to work when the COVID-19 pandemic remits? PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Patino-Rodriguez, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Your manuscript has been well-valued by an acknowledged reviewer in the field addressed in the study. However, the referee asks for some further revisions, about which you can find more information in the comments appended below. Particularly, these comments are related to other models and empirical researches previously performed by similar studies, as a manner to optimize and support your manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This article is about smart reopening in Spain. As many researchers are doing they are using economic and epidemiology simulations. They should refer to and contrast theirs to ta standard one used in the US. Reopening Scenarios by Baqaee, Farhi, Mina, Stock, (NBER 27244 May 2020) A complicated model using data on individual actions and non-pharmaceutical interventions in the weeks ending March 8 – May 16, 2020 finds a decision-maker (governor) following reopening guidelines, with information on personal proximity and ability to work from home by sector, make it possible to construct a GDP-to-Risk index of which sectors provide the greatest increment in GDP per marginal increase in R0. – a classic economic tradeoff, Conclusions - a strong economic reopening is possible; a “smart” reopening, preferencing some sectors over others, makes only modest improvements over a broad reopening. All depend on retaining strong restrictions on non-work social contacts. “If non-work contacts – going to bars, shopping without social distancing and masks, large group gatherings, etc. – return only half-way to the pre-COVID-19 baseline and a second wave.” ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238299.r001
Revision 1
22 Jul 2020 Author Response Dear PLOS ONE reviewer, We are extremely grateful for your comments on our article “Who can go back to work when the COVID-19 pandemic subsides?”. Please take this letter as an explanation of the changes that we have sought to implement in our work, considering all your suggestions. We have carefully read the comments made in your report and we have considered how to include your suggestions. We agree with you on the need to highlight the document that you have indicated to us, and we have done so. In this regard, we wished to point out that our article was first completed on a date when the Baqaee, Farhi, Mina and Stock research was not yet accessible (our document was published on May 10 in a preprint version). Likewise, as you point out, in the version of our article that we are sending now we have included a reflection on the limitation that contagion in non-work activities implies developing a lockdown de-escalation strategy (P.17). The new version of the article that we are sending now also includes the results of the research of Baqaee et al. (2020) (P. 15). Based on the above, we hope that this new revised version of our article successfully addresses the shortcomings you pointed out in the previous version and that it now meets the requirements for publication in the journal. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to clarify any other question related to our work. One again, we are grateful for your comments, as these have enabled us to substantially improve our article. Kind regards. The authors. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238299.r002
14 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Sergio A. Useche, Editor Who can go back to work when the COVID-19 pandemic remits? PONE-D-20-16646R1 Dear Dr. Patino-Rodriguez, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Sergio A. Useche, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238299.r003

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .