Analysis of social combinations of COVID-19 vaccination: Evidence from a conjoint analysis

Hanako Ohmura

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261426

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJune 29, 2021
19 Oct 2021 Decision Letter - Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Editor PONE-D-21-21028 Analysis of Social Combinations of Coronavirus Vaccination: Evidence from a Conjoint Analysis PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ohmura, 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 Dec 02 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: https://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, Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex. 3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: “Corresponding author: Professor, School of Policy Studies, Kwansei Gakuin University. 2-1, Gakuen, Sanda-shi, Hyougo-ken, Japan, 6691337. hanakohmura@kwansei.ac.jp. This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists, Japan Society for Promotion of Science 19K13615” We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists 19K13615.” Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: Partly ******** 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: The article presents a very current and necessary topic. It is well written and has a great methodological quality. The only suggestion I have is: - in the introduction, provide an international overview of the subject. - improve the limitations of the study. - the practical and/or clinical implications of the study need to be further emphasized. It should make clearer the importance of the study for society and the next steps for the future. Reviewer #2: Manuscript Number: PONE-D-21-21028 Manuscript Title: Analysis of Social Combinations of Coronavirus Vaccination: Evidence from a Conjoint Analysis October 17, 2021 Reviewer Comments to the authors: This study provided some important evidence on vaccination dynamics in Japan using a conjoint analysis to breakdown the dynamics into groups. This is very important to determine the attributes of the groups in this pandemic. The aim of this study is laudable and evidentially justified. The statistical analyses, results, and discussions were aligned, which helped in understanding and reviewing this paper. Revise grammatical errors in the manuscript throughout. I would recommend the following: Abstract: -Provide the sample size and indicate whether this is a nationally representative sample or not. -Are these results statistically significant or based on descriptive statistics? Please include this information. -What conclusion(s) could you draw from these findings? I would suggest including this information. -Check your quotations. Some of the quotations have apostrophes in addition. The quotation marks are also different. Introduction -Paragraph one: What are the vaccination statistics in Japan? Provide the vaccination statistics in Japan to compare these information to that of other countries you mentioned, instead of continents. -Paragraph two: Rewrite this “(for example McPhedran and Toombs, 2021; Motta, 2021; Kreps et al., 2020)” as “(McPhedran and Toombs, 2021; Motta, 2021; Kreps et al., 2020)”. -Paragraph four: Add this paragraph to paragraph five as its starting paragraph. -Paragraph six: State your study aim and objectives here. No need stating “section” etc., as original research papers are organized in this manner. Methods Study subjects and period: Did you collect sociodemographic data on the subjects? If yes, I would recommend that you provide these information for us to better understand the dynamics of vaccination by subgroups. Ethics: Was ethical approval obtained? This was not clearly stated. Design of conjoint analysis: Please revise the grammar at this section. You were using both past tense and present tense. For instance, you used a present tense in “Subjects are asked to select one of the following, . . .” but used a past sentence in “The subjects were instructed. . .” -Revise this sentence “According to the above conjoint analysis settings, we set our design of conjoint as in Table 1 and Figure 1, and Figure 2shows an example of the conjoint screen” as “According to the above conjoint analysis settings, we set our design of conjoint as in Table 1 and Figure 1, and Figure 2 shows an example of the conjoint screen.” Results -Paragraph two: Tables 1 and 2 should be formatted to remove a lot of the borderlines. -What could be some possible limitations to your study? It is important to acknowledge this in a research. -Provide some potential empirical studies that could have explained vaccination dynamics or perceptions about vaccination. You could also identify studies that agree or disagree with your findings. Conclusion No comments Thank you very much for your important work. ****** 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:** Mateus Dias Antunes 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261426.r001
Revision 1
16 Nov 2021 Author Response Reviewer #1: I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the favorable review of my manuscript and would appreciate it if you could review my responses to the three points as follows. - in the introduction, provide an international overview of the subject. In addition to the descriptions of the U.S. and EU for international comparisons in the Introduction section, I have added statistics on vaccination intentions for Japan, corresponding to the point raised by Reviewer 2. In the Conclusions section, I have included a description about a cross-comparison of vaccination dynamics in Western countries and Japan. These newly added descriptions are founded upon international comparisons in previous studies rather than simply presenting the actual situation based on statistics. - improve the limitations of the study As a limitation of this study, I first note in the Conclusion section that the findings of this study are limited to subjects in Japan. Also, as a limitation of this study and a suggestion for new research, I have also reported that the current vaccination dynamics in Japan are so advanced that they have reached a situation that overturns the results of this analysis. Here, I also mentioned that a puzzle for new research has arisen. - the practical and/or clinical implications of the study need to be further emphasized. It should make clearer the importance of the study for society and the next steps for the future. As practical and clinical implications of this study, at the end of the Introduction and in the Conclusions sections, I have added the need to prove and publicize the safety of vaccines for each generation. In particular, since this survey was conducted in early March 2021, some studies have begun to show that the vaccination rate in Japan has increased significantly since then, and that this has pushed down the effective reproduction number (R(t)). It is also hypothesized that what contributed to this increase in vaccination rates and subsequent decrease in R(t) was the government’s publicity on TV and public commercials by experts about the limited side effects of vaccines. Since a detailed examination of these hypotheses is an issue for the future, a paragraph on the dynamics of vaccination in Japan and its implications has been added at the end of the Conclusions section. Reviewer #2 I am very grateful for the positive review and the many important suggestions for improvement. The following responses address each of these points, and I hope you will find them helpful. -Revise grammatical errors in the manuscript throughout. Thank you for the suggestion. I have hired an English-language editing company to proofread the entire paper. Abstract: -Provide the sample size and indicate whether this is a nationally representative sample or not. I have included a description of the sample size for the two surveys and how they match up to national demography. -Are these results statistically significant or based on descriptive statistics? Please include this information. Since the empirical results consist of descriptive statistics and a conjoint analysis with tests of statistical significance, I have rewritten the description of the results to distinguish between these analyses. -What conclusion(s) could you draw from these findings? I would suggest including this information. -Check your quotations. Some of the quotations have apostrophes in addition. The quotation marks are also different. I have added the conclusion (and implications) of this study in the Abstract section and also corrected the quotation marks. Introduction: -Paragraph one: What are the vaccination statistics in Japan? Provide the vaccination statistics in Japan to compare these information to that of other countries you mentioned, instead of continents. In response to this comment, I have added statistics on prior vaccination intentions for Japan. Rather than simply adding statistics, I have included statistics from studies such as Yoda et al. (2021) and Ishimaru et al. (2021) with the intention of introducing related studies. -Paragraph two: Rewrite this “(for example McPhedran and Toombs, 2021; Motta, 2021; Kreps et al., 2020)” as “(McPhedran and Toombs, 2021; Motta, 2021; Kreps et al., 2020)”. All literature citations have been changed to a number formation. All references have been renumbered, and vague descriptions such as “for example” have been removed. -Paragraph four: Add this paragraph to paragraph five as its starting paragraph. I would like to thank you for your useful suggestions. I have re-written the paragraphs as you suggested. -Paragraph six: State your study aim and objectives here. No need stating “section” etc., as original research papers are organized in this manner. I also would like to thank you for your useful suggestions. As you pointed out, I have presented the purpose of this study and a brief conclusion in the last paragraph of the Introduction. Methods: Study subjects and period: Did you collect sociodemographic data on the subjects? If yes, I would recommend that you provide these information for us to better understand the dynamics of vaccination by subgroups. In accordance with this helpful comment, I have presented the results on vaccination intention according to sociodemographic characteristics in Tables 3 and 4. By discriminating between vaccination intentions of subgroups, I have added the following explanations: (1) women are more likely to use the wait-and-see strategy than are mem, (2) this tendency is more conspicuous for women with a higher education, and (3) the results are consistent with the findings of previous studies such as Ishimaru (2021). Ethics: Was ethical approval obtained? This was not clearly stated. Design of conjoint analysis: Please revise the grammar at this section. You were using both past tense and present tense. For instance, you used a present tense in “Subjects are asked to select one of the following, . . .” but used a past sentence in “The subjects were instructed. . .” -Revise this sentence “According to the above conjoint analysis settings, we set our design of conjoint as in Table 1 and Figure 1, and Figure 2shows an example of the conjoint screen” as “According to the above conjoint analysis settings, we set our design of conjoint as in Table 1 and Figure 1, and Figure 2 shows an example of the conjoint screen.” Thank you for pointing out the grammatical errors. I have corrected these errors. In addition, ethical approval had been obtained. I have added those details to the paper. Results -Paragraph two: Tables 1 and 2 should be formatted to remove a lot of the borderlines. As you suggested, I tried to see if I could remove the lines, but I think this is the limit of what I can do to maintain readability. I would appreciate it if you would consider it. -What could be some possible limitations to your study? It is important to acknowledge this in a research. I apologize for the inadequate description of the limitations of the study and thank you for your remarks. As the other reviewer also pointed out, we did not fully address the limitations of the study: one is that the findings are limited to Japan; so even if there is a large number of quiescent or non-vaccinated people in other countries, this may not be due solely to avoidance of side effects in blood relatives. In other countries, even if there are a large number of people who are watchers or do not want to be vaccinated, it may not be due only to avoidance of side effects on blood relatives. This is the first limitation of this study. Surveys for this study were conducted in March 2021, and it has been almost 8 months since then. This has led to the discrepancy between the prior vaccination intention rates and actual ones. A relatively high vaccination rate is being achieved in Japan, even beyond the expectations of this study. This discrepancy partially constitutes a limitation of this study, but I recognize that it can be a critical future issue to be addressed. Thus, I have emphasized on answering why lower prior vaccination intentions are being overcome and higher vaccination rates are being achieved in Japanese society has been set as a future topic of research. To answer this question, three hypotheses are presented as well in the end of the Conclusion section. -Provide some potential empirical studies that could have explained vaccination dynamics or perceptions about vaccination. You could also identify studies that agree or disagree with your findings. Thanks to your comment, I followed up on recent studies on vaccination dynamics and, in relation to the above point, to mention the discrepancy between vaccination dynamics and the predictions of this study. In the Conclusions section, I have mentioned the need to examine why prior vaccination intentions and actual vaccination diffusion tend to coincide in the U.S. and European countries, whereas they tend to diverge in Japan. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response_letter_plosone202111.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261426.r002
24 Nov 2021 Decision Letter - Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Editor PONE-D-21-21028R1Analysis of Social Combinations of COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from a Conjoint AnalysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Ohmura, 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 Jan 08 2022 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: https://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, Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, 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. [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 #2: 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: 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 #2: 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: 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: Thank you for addressing most of my comments. I have the following minor comments: You were using "I" but at some points in the method section, you were using "our" and "us". Please, be consistent. Methods Design of conjoint analysis: This sentence may not be complete, “According to the above conjoint analysis settings, I set my design of conjoint as in Table 1 and Figure 1, and Figure shows an example of the conjoint screen.” I think ". . . Figure shows an example of the conjoint screen." should have a number as ". . . Figure 2 shows an example of the conjoint screen." Results Lines 137-138: ". . . as predicted, the percentage exceeded 50% in all surveys (Figure )." The figure is missing a number. Conclusion The information you provided as a limitation does not reflect a study limitation. Your limitation should focus on the measures, study design and sampling, analytical procedures, etc. For instance, this is a cross-sectional study, so you could not establish causality and temporality. ****** 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 [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.0261426.r003
Revision 2
30 Nov 2021 Author Response Reviewer #2 I would like to thank you for your second detailed review of this paper and for your valuable suggestions. I have responded to each comment as follows and would appreciate your confirmation. You were using "I" but at some points in the method section, you were using "our" and "us". Please, be consistent. I have ensured that all instances of “us” and “our” were deleted in this newly revised version. Methods Design of conjoint analysis: This sentence may not be complete, “According to the above conjoint analysis settings, I set my design of conjoint as in Table 1 and Figure 1, and Figure shows an example of the conjoint screen.” I think ". . . Figure shows an example of the conjoint screen." should have a number as ". . . Figure 2 shows an example of the conjoint screen." Thank you for pointing this out. The figure number was indeed missing, so I have added it accordingly. Results Lines 137-138: ". . . as predicted, the percentage exceeded 50% in all surveys (Figure )." The figure is missing a number. I would like to thank you for your careful review of this as well. I have added the figure number accordingly. I have also embedded each percentage value in the bar graph in the figures. I hope that the readability of the figures has improved. Conclusion The information you provided as a limitation does not reflect a study limitation. Your limitation should focus on the measures, study design and sampling, analytical procedures, etc. For instance, this is a cross-sectional study, so you could not establish causality and temporality. I would like to thank you for your kind remarks. One of the limitations of this study is that the data were not panel data consisting of several waves, the unit specific effects were not controlled, and there was a difficulty in handling covariates. I would appreciate it if you could confirm this (l.204–l.212). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: response_letter_plosone2021201.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261426.r004
2 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Editor Analysis of Social Combinations of COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from a Conjoint Analysis PONE-D-21-21028R2 Dear Dr. Ohmura, 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, Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261426.r005
Formally Accepted
9 Dec 2021 Acceptance Letter - Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, Editor PONE-D-21-21028R2 Analysis of Social Combinations of COVID-19 Vaccination: Evidence from a Conjoint Analysis Dear Dr. Ohmura: 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 Prof. Anat Gesser-Edelsburg Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261426.r006

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 .