Citizenship, Migration and Mobility in a Pandemic (CMMP): A global dataset of COVID-19 restrictions on human movement

Lorenzo Piccoli; Jelena Dzankic; Didier Ruedin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248066

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 1, 2020
24 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Francesco Di Gennaro, Editor PONE-D-20-37625 Citizenship, Migration and Mobility in a Pandemic (CMMP): a global dataset of COVID-19 restrictions on human movement PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Piccoli, 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. Please submit your revised manuscript by 10 January. 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, Francesco Di Gennaro 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.) Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1, 2 and 3 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 4.) Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information Additional Editor Comments: dear authors follow reviewer suggestion to improve your excellent paper [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 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 Reviewer #3: 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 Reviewer #3: 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: It is interesting study used for policy makers and scientist for managing the pandemic happening in the future. Also we can get insight from this finding how we reacted COVID 19. But I have minor concerns in Background section that the issues were not stated(what is the importance for conducting this study), the gap. Plus what is its impact and its implications? Great work!!! . for the Reviewer #2: The research work provides a rigorous review of national restrictions that will provide valuable groundwork for the evaluation of the impact of restrictions on various factors contributing to the transmission of the virus or its socioeconomic implications. Importantly, the database is updated regularly, provides the option to restrict evaluation to a limited time frame, and has initiated collection of domestic mobility restrictions that will be important for assessing the relationship between movement and transmission. The methods are described clearly and the summary is straightforward, though lengthy. The methods section warrants a brief overview of the framework used to define and code the different forms of human movement and its restrictions. The discussion of citizenship, however, is limited and the ICCPR is mentioned without initial definition or introduction. Within the exception section, what information on variances in residency type are collected if any? Within the target section, what data are collected on restrictions against asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants which were central to many mobility restrictions and have separate international protections? In dataset 2, it is stated that "we observe an impressive policy convergence towards restrictive measures limiting all forms of human movement." This is a blanket statement that without defining the spectrum of restrictions on human movement (with appropriate references) is nonfactual. Overall an impressive repository, necessary dataset, and launchpad for critical future research. Reviewer #3: The manuscript is not organized in as per the journal's instruction (title page, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusions etc...); however, the nature of the data might affect them to do so. ****** 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:** Thomas Ayalew Abebe Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: 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.0248066.r001
Revision 1
5 Feb 2021 Author Response We thank the reviewers for their careful comments. They helped us to better present the data and highlight their scientific relevance. Given the very detailed and straightforward feedback that we received, in what follows, we briefly respond how we have addressed each point individually. Reviewer #1/1: What is the importance for conducting this study? To further clarify the importance of the study, we have added a sentence on pp. 3-4: “We believe it is important to systematically study in what ways these measures change the international regulatory administrations that govern mobility, identify what groups were more strongly affected, and provide evidence of whether these restrictions are temporary and reversible.” In addition to this, we have amended the concluding section at pp. 17-18 to highlight many possible applications of the dataset and future research avenues. Reviewer #1/2: What is the impact and implications? On p.4, the text highlights the potential policy impact and implications of the dataset, especially for organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization, International Organization for Migration, World Customs Organization, and World Health Organization, but also national governments. Further to this, we have added a sentence on pp. 15-16: “In general terms, the dataset provides groundwork for the evaluation of the impact of restrictions on various factors contributing to the transmission of the virus or its socioeconomic implications”. Additionally, the concluding section at pp. 17-18 discusses many possible applications to explore the implications of the restrictions documented in the dataset. Reviewer #2/1: The methods section warrants a brief overview of the framework used to define and code the different forms of human movement and its restrictions. We added an explanation on p. 4: “The definition of the different forms of human movement and related restrictions was created deductively by the core team of researchers, based on the framing of the measures adopted by governments between January and March 2020.”. Extensive documentation is provided with the dataset and in the Codebook (supplement S1). For this reason, we decided not to duplicate this information in the research note. We also mention the size of the research team to emphasize that the coding reflects an agreement by researchers from different disciplines. Finally, we note that the resulting categories resemble those by Hale et al. (2020) where coverage between the two datasets overlaps, providing external validity. Reviewer #2/2: The discussion of citizenship, however, is limited and the ICCPR is mentioned without initial definition or introduction. We now introduce the ICCPR on p. 11. Given the focus of the research note, we have decided against a lengthy discussion of citizenship. On p. 5 we clarify that in the context of this research note, we use citizenship and nationality as synonymous. Reviewer #2/3: Within the exception section, what information on variances in residency type are collected if any? We added the following explanation on p. 13: “While these and other decisions are highly idiosyncratic, depending on the type of residency permits available in different countries, we still capture them. In particular, while we subsume all residency-related restrictions in the same category, we provide more detailed information on the exact nature of each restriction in the interactive visualization available online”. At this stage, we do not code the exceptions, since they seem too specific to classify due to variations in the administrative definitions of residence across and within countries, but the description we include in the data will facilitate future coding efforts with specific research questions in mind. Reviewer #2/4: Within the target section, what data are collected on restrictions against asylum seekers, refugees, and other migrants which were central to many mobility restrictions and have separate international protections? We now addressed this comment on p. 14: “By contrast, asylum seekers (11 exceptions) and tourists (3 exceptions) were rarely allowed to cross international borders during the early phases of the pandemic”. Since we do not capture implementation, as noted in the conclusions, we unfortunately cannot elaborate about the actual practice for asylum seekers who often do not cross borders in a regular manner. Reviewer #2/5: In dataset 2, it is stated that "we observe an impressive policy convergence towards restrictive measures limiting all forms of human movement." This is a blanket statement that without defining the spectrum of restrictions on human movement (with appropriate references) is nonfactual. We thank the reviewer for spotting this: we have rephrased this sentence and added a qualifier on p. 15: “In the EU, we observe an impressive policy convergence towards restrictive measures limiting human movement across the borders in the early stages of the pandemic. In particular, almost all EU countries closed the borders to non-essential travel in the second half of March 2020”. Reviewer #3:1: The manuscript is not organized in as per the journal's instruction (title page, abstract, introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, conclusions etc...); however, the nature of the data might affect them to do so. For this manuscript we have followed the structure that has become common practice in the field of index building in political sciences. Examples of widely cited notes of this kind include: - Munck, G.L., and J. Verkuilen. 2002. Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy. Comparative Political Studies 35(1): 5–34. - Helbling, M., L. Bjerre, F. Römer, and M. Zobel. 2017. Measuring Immigration Policies: The IMPIC Database. European Political Science 16(1): 79–98. - Schmid, S. D., Piccoli, L. and Arrighi, J.T. "Non-universal suffrage: measuring electoral inclusion in contemporary democracies." European political science 18.4 (2019): 695-713. For the kind of article, we believe that this organization is more effective for readers, but we remain open to further feedback. Other changes We have also streamlined the text in several places. In particular, in order to keep the article focused on the presentation of the dataset, we have reworked concluding section on p. 17, presenting a sketch of future avenues of research. We have also added an additional figure (Figure 1) that displays the sum of all international travel restrictions introduced globally on a given day in the period between January and May 2020. This image is complementary to the discussion in the text and stands as an illustration of the evolution and frequency of restrictions to human movement across international borders. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248066.r002
19 Feb 2021 Decision Letter - Francesco Di Gennaro, Editor Citizenship, migration and mobility in a pandemic (CMMP): A global dataset of COVID-19 restrictions on human movement PONE-D-20-37625R1 Dear Dr. Piccoli, 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, Francesco Di Gennaro Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): dear authors congratulations Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: N/A ****** 4. 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. 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 #2: (No Response) Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 7. 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 #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes:** Yosef Gebreyohannes Abraha https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248066.r003
Formally Accepted
25 Feb 2021 Acceptance Letter - Francesco Di Gennaro, Editor PONE-D-20-37625R1 Citizenship, migration and mobility in a pandemic (CMMP): A global dataset of COVID-19 restrictions on human movement Dear Dr. Piccoli: 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. Francesco Di Gennaro Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248066.r004

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 .