Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 18, 2020
Decision Letter - Yury E Khudyakov, Editor

PONE-D-20-14796

Multiple drivers of the COVID-19 spread: role of climate, international mobility, and region-specific conditions

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kubota,

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 was reviewed by 2 experts in the field. Although one reviewer was satisfied with the quality of your work, the other identified a series of important problems that require your attentions. Please review the attached comments and provide your responses.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 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,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

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

2. We note that Figure 1 and 6 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 a to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. 

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

[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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: Title: Multiple drivers of the COVID-19 spread: role of climate, international mobility, and region-specific conditions

Authors; Yasuhiro Kubota1*, Takayuki Shiono1, Buntarou Kusumoto2, Junichi Fujinuma1

Manuscript Number: PONE-D-20-14796

Article Type: Research

Reviewer; Mohamed A Daw, MD, PhD, MPS, FTCDI

Major Comments;

I read with great interest this paper and despite a lot of hypothetical assumption and ecological and bio epidemiological factors which is indeed difficult to calculate, I think the paper highlights and inspires a lot of new aspects that to be reflected on the global control of pandemic.

The paper need to be edited and formulated according the guide lines of the Journal-PLOS ONE

DECISION

ACCEPT,

Reviewer #2: The authors evaluated the role of climate, region-specific susceptibility, and international traveller population in shaping the geographical patternsbof COVID-19 cases, results showed that the COVID-19 pandemic is deterministically driven by climate suitability, cross-border human mobility, and region specific susceptibility.

From the perspective of research significance, this research is meaningful, as indicated by authors – “The present results, based on mapping the spread of COVID-19 and identifying multiple drivers of this outbreak trajectory, may contribute to a better understanding of the disease transmission risk and the measures against long-term epidemic”.

However, the novelty of this study research and the full presentation and discussion of the data are slightly inadequate. The comments are listed below:

1. As described by authors - “……several research groups have focused on relevant factors individually and quickly examined the role of climate [8–10], international mobility linked to human contact [11,12], and community-based host susceptibility [13] in the spread of COVID-19”. Compared with published studies, what are the different research findings and novelty of this study? Does it emphasize the relative importance of these factors? If so, are there any interactions between these factors?

2. The “Introduction” is too long, some descriptions such as third paragraph (Evaluating the drivers of the COVID-19 spread is a challenging task at the present phase……) is suggested to be moved to the “Discussion” section.

3. “Results and Discussion”: it was described as “negatively correlated” or “positively correlated” with the accumulated numbers of the COVID-19 cases, but did not make an in-depth discussion on what caused the “negatively correlated” or “positively correlated”. The descriptions showing the correlation are not sufficient enough, the reasons and explanations behind the data are the most important descriptions.

4. “Results and Discussion”: in addition to describing the “negatively correlated” or “positively correlated”, it is suggested to use specific data from some representative countries or regions to explain the relationship between above factors with the accumulated numbers of the COVID-19 cases. Some Tables are suggested to be added to show the specific values.

**********

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: Yes: Mohamed A Daw, MD, PhD, MPS, FTCDI

Reviewer #2: 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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Reviewer-commentsPONE-D-20-14796- Multiple Drivers.docx
Revision 1

Editor-in-Chief: Plos One

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you very much for your letter on 8 June 2020 to our submitted manuscript. We sincerely appreciate comments from the reviewers. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to the comments and suggestion. Moreover, we updated the data including new case data until 30 June and redid the analysis; therefore, the number of countries/regions slightly changed and the related figures are also revised.

Please find attached our manuscript entitled “Multiple drivers of the COVID-19 spread: the roles of climate, international mobility, and region-specific conditions” to be considered for publication as an article in Plos One.

Our point-to-point responses to the editor’s and reviewers’ comments are given below. We hope that these revisions will result in our paper being acceptable for publication. Thank you very much for your help, and we look forward to hearing your decision on our manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Yasuhiro Kubota

Reply to the comments by Dr Mohamed A Daw

We appreciate your assessment on our manuscript. We have edited and formulated according the guide lines of the Journal-PLOS ONE.

Reply to the reviewer 2’s comments:

We appreciate constructive comments on our manuscript. Based on the reviewer’s comments, we have conducted additional analyses and revised the manuscript (see the parts written in red). Our point-to-point responses to the comments are listed below.

1. As described by authors - “……several research groups have focused on relevant factors individually and quickly examined the role of climate [8–10], international mobility linked to human contact [11,12], and community-based host susceptibility [13] in the spread of COVID-19”. Compared with published studies, what are the different research findings and novelty of this study? Does it emphasize the relative importance of these factors? If so, are there any interactions between these factors?

In the revision, we clarified novelty of our findings in the abstract (page 2: lines 32-35): “Notably, the relative importance of these factors changed over time; the number of days from outbreak onset drove COVID-19 spread in the early stage, then human mobility accelerated the pandemic, and lastly climate (temperature) propelled the phase following disease expansion”.

2. The “Introduction” is too long, some descriptions such as third paragraph (Evaluating the drivers of the COVID-19 spread is a challenging task at the present phase……) is suggested to be moved to the “Discussion” section.

According to the suggestion, we have revised the introduction section (page 3-5: lines 42-82). With this respect, we also improved the discussion section (page 12-25: see the parts written in red).

3. “Results and Discussion”: it was described as “negatively correlated” or “positively correlated” with the accumulated numbers of the COVID-19 cases, but did not make an in-depth discussion on what caused the “negatively correlated” or “positively correlated”. The descriptions showing the correlation are not sufficient enough, the reasons and explanations behind the data are the most important descriptions.

We added a little interpretation in relation to the correlative patterns (e.g. page 18: lines 306-311). These correlative patterns are changing and the underpinning mechanism is not clear. Therefore, we also stated this point (page 20: 350-354).

4. “Results and Discussion”: in addition to describing the “negatively correlated” or “positively correlated”, it is suggested to use specific data from some representative countries or regions to explain the relationship between above factors with the accumulated numbers of the COVID-19 cases. Some Tables are suggested to be added to show the specific values.

According to the suggestion, we conducted the additional analysis on some representative countries to argue the correlative patterns of environmental factors with the accumulated numbers of the COVID-19 cases. In the revised manuscript, we added new graph (Fig. 3, Fig. S1, and Fig. S2) and Table 1 that show country/region-specific epidemic pattern (page 12-15: lines 204-254, page 21-24: lines 383-418).

Decision Letter - Yury E Khudyakov, Editor

Multiple drivers of the COVID-19 spread: role of climate, international mobility, and region-specific conditions

PONE-D-20-14796R1

Dear Dr. Kubota,

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,

Yury E Khudyakov, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Yury E Khudyakov, Editor

PONE-D-20-14796R1

Multiple drivers of the COVID-19 spread: the roles of climate, international mobility, and region-specific conditions

Dear Dr. Kubota:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Yury E Khudyakov

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .