The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants

Abdulhadi A. AlAmodi; Khaled Al-Kattan; Mohammad Abrar Shareef

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260240

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 27, 2020
24 Sep 2020 Decision Letter - Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Editor PONE-D-20-19020 The Current Global Perspective of the General Public towards the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior Model: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on 67,143 Participants. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shareef, 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. Thanks for submission to Plos One. Your manuscript has been reviewed by experts and found it interesting. However, there are few concerns related to the methodology of review including quality assessment and results presentations. These concerns are needed to be addressed before considering the draft for publication. 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, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: Thanks for submission to Plos One. Your manuscript has been reviewed by experts and found it interesting. However, there are few concerns related to the methodology of review including quality assessment and results presentations. These concerns are needed to be addressed before considering the draft for publication. 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 provide a brief discussion on the effect of publication bias on your conclusions. 3. Please confirm that you have included all items recommended in the PRISMA checklist including the full electronic boolean search strategy used to identify studies with all search terms and limits for at least one database. Please attach this as supplementary file. 4. Please include the specific publication date range that was used to search the databases for literature. 5. 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. [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: 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: No 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: No ****** 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: The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis on The Current Global Perspective of the General Public towards the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior Model: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on 67,143 Participants The analysis was rigorous and revealed the pattern of knowledge attitude and precautionary practice globally Among such revelations is the worrisome behavior of developing countries compared to the developed world. Another is that, precautionary measures were similar between developed and developing countries. However, the authors should attach an excel file of the minimum data used in the analysis It should be accepted for publication Reviewer #2: It is a very relevant manuscript at present situation. There are just a few suggestions: i) There are some grammatical and topographical errors detected throughout the manuscript and a professional editing is advised ii) In the methods section the eligibility criteria can be further described applying stage 1 and stage 2 criteria. Stage 2 focusing more on the methodology of the eligibility criteria in terms of selection of research papers selected for the review to address the research question iii) The discussion section can be expanded with suggesting more policy recommendations that the results of the review are suggesting Reviewer #3: This review is a significant and timely upmost required to be conducted. However, the general suggestions and comments should be incorporated well. There is a language editorial problems. Eg tenses, spelling error (eg Review manager), grammar usage I personally suggest the review title is required to be reshuffled as: Title: The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Abbreviation shouldn’t be appeared in the title. Authors information: adhere to Plos one guideline Abstract Research gap was not indicated Objective the review was not well stated Materials and Methods Methods of data extraction and effect size measures were not specified. Quality of evidence assessment was not explained. Results The finding the review was not well written up. Introduction Back ground Research gap was not explained. Materials and methods What are your review research development? Search strategy The authors didn’t use MeSH terms which was inclusive What did the authors use to avoid duplication of records? Data extraction Outcomes assessment was not explained Quality and risk bias assessment When the 2 author reviewers faced disagreement, how did you resolve it? How could blinding be an evaluation item for quality assessment as your studies included was cross sectional study design? Wht did you do if certain studies didn’t meet methodological criteria? Statistical analysis How did you express you effect size? How did you assess publication bias more objectively? Explain it by using statistical tests Quality of evidence assessment for major outcomes was not explained? Use Grade pro soft ware Results The pooled prevalence of each outcome along with CI should be specified separately in a logical order Discussion The finding was not compared and contrasted. The possible reason of the differences/similarities should be stated Conclusion It should be made in line to the findings. ****** 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:** Abesig Julius 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.0260240.r001
Revision 1
15 Nov 2020 Author Response Editor’s Comments: Point#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 Authors’ Response: Thank you for your note. We made sure the manuscript meets the requirements of PLOSONE. Point#2: Please provide a brief discussion on the effect of publication bias on your conclusions. Authors’ Response: Thank you for your input. The following segment was added in the limitation part of the discussion section of the paper. “Therefore, the publication bias was augmented due to heterogeneity resulting from variation in the sample size, methodological differences, inconsistent quality outcome of various studies, different regions, and sociodemographic factors. Our conclusions represent a preliminary trend that may ultimately change over time as the number of studies increases, the sample size is larger, less heterogeneity, and more rigorous methodological protocols.” Point#3: Please confirm that you have included all items recommended in the PRISMA checklist including the full electronic boolean search strategy used to identify studies with all search terms and limits for at least one database. Please attach this as a supplementary file. Authors’ Response: Thank you for this important note. We confirm that we included two supplementary tables. One for the PRISMA checklist and the second document explains the keywords used for search strategy in Medline database. Point#4: Please include the specific publication date range that was used to search the databases for literature. Authors’ Response: The following paraphrase was added in the results’ section of the manuscript: “The studies were collected from January 1st until May 20th”. Point#5: 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. Authors’ Response: Thank you for this comment as well as the abovementioned comments. All adjusted according to per your recommendations. Supporting information files captions and files was added. Reviewers' Comments to the Authors: 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). Comments of Reviewer#1: Point#1: The study was a systematic review and meta-analysis on The Current Global Perspective of the General Public towards the COVID-19 Pandemic Using the Knowledge-Attitude-Behavior Model: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on 67,143 Participants. The analysis was rigorous and revealed the pattern of knowledge attitude and precautionary practice globally. Among such revelations is the worrisome behavior of developing countries compared to the developed world. Another is that precautionary measures were similar between developed and developing countries. However, the authors should attach an excel file of the minimum data used in the analysis. It should be accepted for publication. Authors’ Response: Thank you for these highlights. We believe it will be the first comprehensive report that will provide a preliminary finding on a large scale as well as motivating more future investigations of similar types in the future. The raw data file was added as a supplementary file for your reference. Comments of Reviewer#2: It is a very relevant manuscript at present situation. There are just a few suggestions: Point#1: There are some grammatical and topographical errors detected throughout the manuscript and a professional editing is advised. Authors’ Response: Thank you for your note. We consulted with a professional medical writing service that corrected the mechanical errors and performed linguistic editing in the manuscript. Corrections are highlighted throughout the manuscript. Point#2: In the methods section the eligibility criteria can be further described applying stage 1 and stage 2 criteria. Stage 2 focusing more on the methodology of the eligibility criteria in terms of selection of research papers selected for the review to address the research question. Authors’ Response: Thank you for your valuable input. We added the following paragraph in the Methods section (search strategy and eligibility criteria): “The initial screening process included evaluating the title and abstract. To determine the potentially eligible studies, we included studies of only the English language, any region worldwide, published or in print, and available full-text articles. Methodologically, we included only cross-sectional studies that reported outcomes of knowledge, attitudes and precautionary behaviors towards the COVID-19 pandemic among the general public. No restriction was applied in terms of sample size, study setting, data collection protocol, or study type.” Point#3: The discussion section can be expanded by suggesting more policy recommendations that the results of the review are suggesting. Authors’ Response: Thank you for this comment. We added the following in the discussion. “Our study offers a new insight for policy makers in public health services. Efforts should be directed to consistently educate the public about this growing pandemic. More strict measures and policies should be highlighting the impact of physical separation, national mask mandate, and hand washing. Policy makers in government as well as the department of health shall provide resources that will ultimately reduce the acquisition and transmission of COVID-19. A gap between first and second surge of CVOID-19 spread with absences of strict policies will create a more deleterious impact. Policy makers should utilize all available venues to spread credible information about the dynamics, updates, and seriousness of this novel coronavirus.” Comments of Reviewer#3: This review is a significant and timely upmost required to be conducted. However, the general suggestions and comments should be incorporated well. Point#1: There are language editorial problems. Eg tenses, spelling error (eg Review manager), grammar usage. Authors’ Response: Thank you for your comment. We consulted with a professional medical writing service that corrected the mechanical errors and performed linguistic editing in the manuscript. Corrections are highlighted throughout the manuscript. Point#2: I personally suggest the review title is required to be reshuffled as: Title: The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 Pandemic: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Abbreviation shouldn’t be appeared in the title. Authors’ Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We changed the title according to your recommendation and added the number of participants to emphasize the strength of the study. We removed the abbreviation. The following change was incorporated: “The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the coronavirus disease -19 Pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants.” Point#3: Authors information: adhere to Plos one guideline. Authors’ Response: Changed per PLOS one guideline. Point#3: Abstract: Research gap was not indicated Authors’ Response: Thank you for your valuable note. We incorporated the following in the abstract’s background. “While the current literature about the COVID-19 pandemic extensively addresses clinical and laboratory-based studies, a gap remains still present in terms of evaluating the general public knowledge and behaviors towards the COVID-19 pandemic.” Point#4: Abstract: Objective the review was not well stated Authors’ Response: Thank you for your valuable note. We incorporated the following in the abstract’s background. “The goal of this review is to form a preliminary and contemporary understanding of the general public knowledge, attitude, and behaviors towards the COVID-19 pandemic globally.” Point#5: Abstract: Materials and Methods Methods of data extraction and effect size measures were not specified. The quality of the evidence assessment was not explained. Authors’ Response: Thank you for this critical comment. We incorporated the following as part of the methods in the abstract of the paper: “A systematic search was conducted in various databases until May 2020. Each study’s characteristics including the sample size, region, and study type were examined individually. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model and pooled prevalence with 95% confidence interval (CI) of all evaluated outcomes such as adequate knowledge, positive feelings, worrisome about the COVID-19 pandemic, and practice were recorded and reported from each study. Parameters such as random distribution, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective reporting, and other biases were utilized to assess the quality of each retrieved record. A funnel plot was employed to assess publication bias.” Point#6: Abstract: Results The finding the review was not well written up. Authors’ Response: Thank you for this critical comment. We incorporated the following as part of the methods in the abstract of the paper: “A total of 26 studies with 67,143 participants were analyzed. The overall prevalence of knowledge, positive attitude, worrisome, and practice of precautionary measures were 0.87, 0.85, 0.71, and 0.77, respectively. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that social distancing is less practiced in Africa than other regions (p=0.02), while knowledge of prevention of COVID-19 was reported higher in Asia (p=0.001). Furthermore, people in developing countries had a higher prevalence of worrisome towards the COVID-19 pandemic with a p-value of less than 0.001. The funnel plot demonstrated a presence of publication bias.” Point#7: Introduction Background The research gap was not explained. Authors’ Response: Similarly, as we indicated in the abstract. We highlighted the gap of knowledge by stating it in the introduction again. We incorporated the following: “While the current literature about the COVID-19 pandemic extensively addresses clinical and laboratory-based studies, a gap remains still present in terms of evaluating the general public knowledge and behaviors towards the COVID-19 pandemic.” Point#8: Materials and methods What are your review research development? Authors’ Response: Several factors played a role in our research development. First, the risk perception of the public is very important in the overall public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we touched on a topic that was not well addressed in the literature. Second, the best approach we thought about to have contemporary and preliminary evidence is by utilizing the highest level of evidence which is systematic review and meta-analysis. We also embraced the concept of the Knowledge-attitude-behavior model in the evaluation of the general public risk perception. Since there have been no interventional studies, we utilized the prevalence meta-analysis strategy which is based on pooled prevalence, as the effect size. Point#8: Materials and methods Search strategy The authors didn’t use MeSH terms which was inclusive What did the authors use to avoid duplication of records? Authors’ Response: We utilized the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) feature during our search strategy. Therefore, we used a wide variet of terms and keywords separate as well as in combination to be inclusive. We added a supplemntary table for the search strategy. We used EndNote to ensure de-duplication. Point#9: Data extraction Outcomes assessment was not explained Quality and risk bias assessment Authors’ Response: We have utilized the Cochrane’s review guidelines for risk of bias assessment of each included study. This model has two outcome assessment components: incomplete outcome data and selective reporting. We have reported our findings in Table 2. Point#10: When the 2 author reviewers faced disagreement, how did you resolve it? Authors’ Response: In the event of disagreement, the first and corresponding authors met to discuss and reach consensus. Point#11: How could blinding be an evaluation item for quality assessment as your studies included was cross sectional study design? Authors’ Response: Thank you for this valuable comment. True, with cross sectional study, blinding is not feasible. So, we utilized the the Cochrane’s review guidelines for quality assessment of cross sectional studies. In the absence of blinding, which was the case for all the studies, we labeled it as unclear in the quality assessment table. Point#12: What did you do if certain studies didn’t meet methodological criteria? Authors’ Response: We determined the inclusion criteria in the PRISMA chart in the paper. Any study that did not meet the inclusion criteria, we excluded it. However, for the methodological criteria, we did not have specific criteria as all the studies were of a cross sectional study design. We evaluated the quality according to the Cochrane’s review guidelines. Point#12: Statistical analysis How did you express your effect size? Authors’ Response: Thank you for the comment. Since it was a prevalence meta-analysis, we used the prevalence as the effect size in this scenario. It was expressed as proprtions with 95% confidence interval. Point#13: How did you assess publication bias more objectively? Explain it by using statistical tests Authors’ Response: Thank you for this critical point. We were limited in this aspect as the software we used does not offer the objective emasure of publication bias. Therefore, we evaluated it sujecictively based on the observation of the symmetry or asymmetry of the funnel plot. Point#14: Quality of evidence assessment for major outcomes was not explained? Use Grade pro soft ware. Authors’ Response: There are different quality assessment models that have been employed to evaluate the quality of evidence of cross-sectional studies. The authors have utilized the Cochrane’s review guidelines to evaluate the quality of each reported study. Thank you for your suggestion to use GradePro, however, up to the knowledge of authors, we were not able to find meta-analysis that has utilized GradePro on cross-sectional studies. Of note, below is another meta-analysis that has utilized the Cochrane’s review guidelines for risk of bias assessment of cross-sectional studies. Guo S, Yang Y, Liu, F, Li F. The awareness rate of mental health knowledge Among Chinese adolescent. Medicine 2020; 99(7). Point#15: Results The pooled prevalence of each outcome along with CI should be specified separately in a logical order Authors’ Response: We have added another table (Table 3) in the results section to depict pooled prevalence and confidence interval of major outcomes in logical order. Point#15: Discussion The finding was not compared and contrasted. The possible reason of the differences/similarities should be stated Authors’ Response: Thank you for this comment. We performed compare and contrast among individual studies. Due to lack of evidence in this suject especially that our report is the first to illuminate prevalence meta analysis among the general public, we however, compared and contrasted to previous studies with similar outbreaks. We provided several explanations for the differences and smiliarties to the best of our knowledge and interpretation of the existing literature. Point#15: Conclusion It should be made in line to the findings. Authors’ Response: Thank you. Changed per recommendation. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260240.r002
23 Dec 2020 Decision Letter - Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Editor PONE-D-20-19020R1 The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shareef, 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. Dear Authors, thank you very much for responding to the queries of referees. There are few more comments need your attention. Publication Bias and Quality assessment is area of concerns still needed to be addressed. Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 06 2021 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, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #1: The authors have done a good job. They have addressed all the technical and grammatical errors in the manuscript. They have also addressed all the comments that i raised. The manuscript is technically sound and should be accepted for publication in you journal. Reviewer #2: Thank you for successfully addressed all the points. The manuscript is now suitable for publication in the journal. Reviewer #3: I have scanned the authors' work meticulously. The authors have tried to react to certain questions; nevertheless, publication bias and quality evidence assessment issues has not been addressed yet. Hint : Publication bias can be assessed objectively using statistical tests like Beggs test, Egger test and harbord test using Stata version 16/ its extension or comprehensive meta analysis software whereas quality evidence assessment can be made using Grade pro soft ware. The authors are suggested to down load the aforementioned softwares and use it. ****** 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 #1: No 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.0260240.r003
Revision 2
7 Feb 2021 Author Response We have performed quality evidence assessment of each reported outcome and used Grade pro software for that as suggested. In addition, both Begg’s and Egger’s tests were used to evaluate symmetry of funnel plots for assessment of publication bias. We have reported all the findings in the revised manuscript. We have utilized MedCalc software for meta-analysis per authors’ convenience. Thank you for your valuable suggestion. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-revised2.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260240.r004
28 Mar 2021 Decision Letter - Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Editor PONE-D-20-19020R2 The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shareef, 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 May 12 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you very much for revisions. However, reviewer has raised few more concerns. Please address the reviewer`s queries so appropriate decision could be made. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #1: 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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: I have meticulously scanned the authors manuscript. My concerns were addressed. Nevertheless, there was some concerns. eg in abstract : background : the authors should state his purpose by using the aim instead of using goal, Materials and methods in main text: spelling error should be corrected: review manager not review manage ****** 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 #1: 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.0260240.r005
Revision 3
29 Mar 2021 Author Response As per the third reviewer’s suggestion, we have replaced the word “goal” with “aim” in the abstract and we have corrected the spelling of “review manager” in the methods section. Thank you for your valuable feedback. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-revised3.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260240.r006
27 May 2021 Decision Letter - Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Editor PONE-D-20-19020R3 The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shareef, 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 Jul 11 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you very much for revising the draft. I invite you to consider the few more comments from the one reviewer. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: The overall prevalence of knowledge, positive attitude, worrisome, and practice of precautionary measures should be indicated along with 95% confidence interval both in the abstract and main body part of the results. ****** 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 #1: 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.0260240.r007
Revision 4
27 Jun 2021 Author Response Reviewers' Comments to the Authors: Reviewer #3: The overall prevalence of knowledge, positive attitude, worrisome, and practice of precautionary measures should be indicated along with 95% confidence interval both in the abstract and main body part of the results. Authors’ Response: As per the third reviewer’s suggestion, we ensured that all pooled prevalence are associated with 95% confidence interval in both abstract and results sections. Thank you for your comment. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-revised4.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260240.r008
21 Jul 2021 Decision Letter - Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Editor PONE-D-20-19020R4 The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Shareef, 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 Sep 04 2021 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. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Thank you for revising the draft. This manuscript has been substantially improved. However, few changes are suggested by the reviewer. Moreover, It is advised to take assistance from native English speaker to revise the draft for Grammar, Syntax and spelling. Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] 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 #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #3: (No Response) ******** 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #1: Yes Reviewer #3: No ****** 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 #1: Yes 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 #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: Abstract Background There was tense error eg The aim of this review is to form a preliminary and contemporary understanding of the general public knowledge, attitude, and behaviors towards the COVID-19 pandemic globall Results The overall prevalence of knowledge, positive attitude, worrisome, and practice of precautionary measures can't be computed using RevMan software. Use other POWERFUL software like STATA or other software. ****** 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 #1: 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.0260240.r009
Revision 5
19 Sep 2021 Author Response Comments of Editor: Editor: Thank you for revising the draft. This manuscript has been substantially improved. However, few changes are suggested by the reviewer. Moreover, It is advised to take assistance from native English speaker to revise the draft for Grammar, Syntax and spelling. Authors’ Response: We have initially consulted with a professional medical writing service that corrected the mechanical errors and performed linguistic editing in the manuscript. The manuscript was revised again and grammatical errors were corrected. Reviewers' Comments to the Authors: Reviewer #3: Abstract Background There was tense error eg The aim of this review is to form a preliminary and contemporary understanding of the general public knowledge, attitude, and behaviors towards the COVID-19 pandemic global Authors’ Response: The manuscript was revised for any tense error and corrected accordingly. All changes have been implemented in the final manuscript. Thanks for your suggestion. Reviewer #3: Results The overall prevalence of knowledge, positive attitude, worrisome, and practice of precautionary measures can't be computed using RevMan software. Use other POWERFUL software like STATA or other software. Authors’ Response: We have calculated pooled prevalence of studies using RevMan Software which computes the prevalence as the effect size along with 95% confidence interval. Since RevMan has an option of calculating pooled prevalence, we decided to stick with this software. Thank you for the suggestion. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewers-revised6.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260240.r010
8 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Editor The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants. PONE-D-20-19020R5 Dear Dr. Shareef, 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, Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): 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 #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 #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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 #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 #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 #3: The authors have substantially improved their manuscript. Title: The number indicated on title "on 67,143 participants'' should be expunged. Abstract The authors should follow the PLOS ONE guidelines Use unstructured abstract The first 'COVID 19 " should be non abbreviated; subsequently, the authors can use abbreviation. Main body methods The authors should state inclusion criteria (PCC), and study selection. Data synthesis Specify the cut off to deem presence of heterogeneity and publication bias. correct language error Rewrite" The outcome data are presented as mean with a 95% confidence interval. ****** 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 #3: No https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260240.r011
Formally Accepted
15 Nov 2021 Acceptance Letter - Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi, Editor PONE-D-20-19020R5 The current global perspective of the knowledge-attitude-behavior of the general public towards the corona virus disease -19 pandemic: Systematic review and meta-analysis on 67,143 participants. Dear Dr. Shareef: 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. Tauqeer Hussain Mallhi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260240.r012

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 .