Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 9, 2021
Decision Letter - Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Editor

PONE-D-21-35424Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, ChinaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Deng,

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 15 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,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

(This study was supported by Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of Chongqing Education Commission (21SKGH143) and Foundation of First-class Discipline of Foreign Languages & Literature, Chongqing (SISUWYJY202104).)

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

(No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.)

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

 This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

(This research was funded by the first author’s grant on COVID-19 and mental health)

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 study was supported by the first author's grants: Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of Chongqing Education Commission (21SKGH143) and Foundation of First-class Discipline of Foreign Languages & Literature, Chongqing (SISUWYJY202104).)

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. 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):

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript by Deng et al. “Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, China” is an interesting study about citizens employed metaphors to communicate about their lived experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The examination of metaphors echoed the different kinds of emotional states and psychological conditions of the research participants, focusing on their mental imagery of COVID-19, extreme emotional experiences, and symbolic behaviors under the pandemic. Authors have concluded that bodily experiences of the pandemic, the environment, and the psychological factors combine to shape people’s metaphorical thinking processes. This study is noteworthy/interesting but the manuscript requires minor revision before its publication.

Comments

1. The English of manuscript can be polished (minor).

2. At least one additional Figure (illustration) may be provided as to highlight the summary or prospect of this study.

3. The abbreviations should be cross validated in the manuscript (First define them fully followed by abbreviation) and one paragraph can be added for abbreviations.

4. Authors should discuss about the limitation to their study.

Reviewer #2: In this paper entitled "Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, China", the authors investigate a group of 27 Wuhan citizens employed metaphors to communicate about the livid experience of covid-19 pandemic. The results show that multiple factors such as bodily experience, environment, and psychological factors shape people's thinking. The manuscript is good and well carried out. However, it requires revision to address minor comments.

Minor comments:

1) The study investigated a group of 27 Wuhan citizens. Could the authors explain how his results are significant with a small sample size in the manuscript?

2) Introduction, the importance of this study may be more specifically highlighted.

3) The author may provide a paragraph regarding challenges or prospects of study in the manuscript.

4) The authors may additionally provide one Figure:

4a) The participant information and interview process may be represented in tabular and flowchart form, respectively.

4b) Results may be represented in graphical form (Appendix A & B).

Reviewer #3: It is a well-written report of extensive research work on the Covid-19 pendamic, with very well planned experimental work and parameters chosen. The overall quality of manuscript is good but still there are many grammatically and spelling mistakes in this article which must be taken care of in the revised version so that it could publish.

**********

[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.0261968.r001
Revision 1
Author Response

Dear Dr. Patel and Reviewers,

We appreciate the interest that you and the reviewers have taken in our manuscript entitled “Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, China”. The comments are very insightful and valuable for improving our manuscript. We have made revisions in accordance with the reviewers’ enlightening suggestions. Revised and rewritten portions are marked in dark blue in the revised manuscript. We have also enclosed the point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments (see the attached file).

The data availability statement and funding are updated accordingly:

Data Availability Statement: The minimal dataset is available within the paper. Additional data is available in figshare: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.17152463

Funding: This study was supported by Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of Chongqing Education Commission (21SKGH143) and Foundation of First-class Discipline of Foreign Languages & Literature, Chongqing (SISUWYJY202104). There was no additional external funding received for this study.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Thank you for your interest and efforts and we are looking forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our manuscript, and we are ready to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.

Thanks and best wishes,

The authors

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer #1

The manuscript by Deng et al. “Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, China” is an interesting study about citizens employed metaphors to communicate about their lived experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. The examination of metaphors echoed the different kinds of emotional states and psychological conditions of the research participants, focusing on their mental imagery of COVID-19, extreme emotional experiences, and symbolic behaviors under the pandemic. Authors have concluded that bodily experiences of the pandemic, the environment, and the psychological factors combine to shape people’s metaphorical thinking processes. This study is noteworthy/interesting but the manuscript requires minor revision before its publication.

Comments：

1. The English of manuscript can be polished (minor).

Reply: We have the revised manuscript polished by a native speaker from UK (i.e. a professor in linguistics). The revised and added contents are marked in dark blue.

2. At least one additional Figure (illustration) may be provided as to highlight the summary or prospect of this study.

Reply: We have added one Figure at the end of the revised manuscript to summarize the main points of this study on page 15.

3. The abbreviations should be cross validated in the manuscript (First define them fully followed by abbreviation) and one paragraph can be added for abbreviations.

Reply: We have cross validated all the abbreviations and added one paragraph at the end of the manuscript, as below on page 15:

“Abbreviations: COVID-19 refers to Corona Virus Disease; SARS represents Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome; AIDS and HIV are the abbreviated forms of Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome and Human Immunodeficiency Virus, respectively; MIP and MIPVU denote metaphor identification procedure and metaphor identification procedure of VU University Amsterdam, respectively; 4E approach to embodied cognition means embodied, embedded, enacted, extended approaches.”(See page 15)

4. Authors should discuss about the limitation to their study.

Reply: We have provided two paragraphs regarding limitations and future research following the Discussion section. The added paragraphs can be seen on page 14, as copied below:

Study limitations and future research

This study has some limitations. First, we examined metaphors in the framing of the COVID-19 pandemic under a collective emotion [26]. It assumed that participants from Wuhan would have the same directions or tendencies as regards emotions or communicating emotions towards the COVID-19 experiences. Although participants were recruited from the same city, the metaphor informants were of different types. Each of their perspectives could be different with respect to their COVID-19 experiences. A second limitation has to do with the small sample size. This study involved a qualitative analysis of pandemic metaphors in a convenience sample of 27 participants from Wuhan during COVID-19. The results may not be generalizable to a wider population. Furthermore, the lack of face-to-face interviews might have prevented participants from freely expressing their possible frustrations during the pandemic [35].

In the light of the potential challenges, future research could employ large samples of video or face-to-face interviews to complement the present research. Furthermore, quantitative models can be used to distinguish different metaphorical conceptualizations of COVID-19 among the different types of participants. Individual background factors such as gender, age, and quarantine time can be powerful predictors in exploring the framing variation of metaphor in communication about the lived experiences of the pandemic.” (See pages 14)

Reviewer #2

In this paper entitled "Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, China", the authors investigate a group of 27 Wuhan citizens employed metaphors to communicate about the livid experience of covid-19 pandemic. The results show that multiple factors such as bodily experience, environment, and psychological factors shape people's thinking. The manuscript is good and well carried out. However, it requires revision to address minor comments.

Minor comments:

1) The study investigated a group of 27 Wuhan citizens. Could the authors explain how his results are significant with a small sample size in the manuscript?

Reply: Thanks for this constructive comment. We have added the challenges of this study regarding the small sample size in the newly added part “Study limitations and future research” on page 14, as copied below:

“…A second limitation has to do with the small sample size. This study involved a qualitative analysis of pandemic metaphors in a convenience sample of 27 participants from Wuhan during COVID-19. The results may not be generalizable to a wider population. …

In the light of the potential challenges, future research could employ large samples of video or face-to-face interviews to complement the present research. “

Looking at the literature of the qualitative study paradigm, the small sample can still yield significant findings. For example:

Gibbs & Franks [3] analyzed metaphors in six women’s narratives of cancer experiences. The results showed that metaphors predominately originated from ordinary embodied experiences relating to the healthy body, such that patients concentrated on certain metaphorical ways of viewing their illnesses unique to their individual experiences [15]. (See page 1, the introduction of our paper)

Gibbs R, Franks H. Embodied metaphor in women’s narratives about their experiences with cancer. Health Communication. 2002; 14(2): 139–65. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327027HC1402_1

Another example is that in a recent PLOS ONE paper, Falvo et al. (2021) conducted a qualitative study in a convenience sample of merely 19 participants from Switzerland during the first COVID-19 lockdown and reported some significant findings regarding their lived experiences during the pandemic.

Falvo I, Zufferey MC, Albanese E, Fadda M. Lived experiences of older adults during the first COVID-19 lockdown: A qualitative study. PLoS ONE. 2021 June; 16(6): e0252101. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0252101

In the future research, we will definitely draw on large samples, continuing to validate the findings of the present study.

2) Introduction, the importance of this study may be more specifically highlighted.

Reply: We have added a paragraph highlighting the importance of this study at the end of “Introduction” on page 3 of the revised manuscript, as copied below:

“Essentially, we argue that metaphor can provide functional and concrete cognitive patterns in articulating and constructing participants’ subjective lived experiences, offering in-depth insight into their emotional states, identifying personal mental health issues and ultimately promoting positive changes. The hope is that the present paper will serve to shed light on the ways that metaphor can be employed by mental health professionals when evaluating and measuring people’s mental health before implementing effective mental health support and promoting accurate health awareness in the fight against the pandemic crisis. ” (See page 3)

3) The author may provide a paragraph regarding challenges or prospects of study in the manuscript.

Reply: Thanks for this constructive comment. We have added two paragraphs regarding limitations and future research at the end of the “Discussion” section. See the added paragraphs on page 14, as copied below:

Study limitations and future research

“This study has some limitations. First, we examined metaphors in the framing of the COVID-19 pandemic under a collective emotion [26]. It assumed that participants from Wuhan would have the same directions or tendencies as regards emotions or communicating emotions towards the COVID-19 experiences. Although participants were recruited from the same city, the metaphor informants were of different types. Each of their perspectives could be different with respect to their COVID-19 experiences. A second limitation has to do with the small sample size. This study involved a qualitative analysis of pandemic metaphors in a convenience sample of 27 participants from Wuhan during COVID-19. The results may not be generalizable to a wider population. Furthermore, the lack of face-to-face interviews might have prevented participants from freely expressing their possible frustrations during the pandemic [35].

In the light of the potential challenges, future research could employ large samples of video or face-to-face interviews to complement the present research. Furthermore, quantitative models can be used to distinguish different metaphorical conceptualizations of COVID-19 among the different types of participants. Individual background factors such as gender, age, and quarantine time can be powerful predictors in exploring the framing variation of metaphor in communication about the lived experiences of the pandemic.” (See pages 14)

4) The authors may additionally provide one Figure:

4a) The participant information and interview process may be represented in tabular and flowchart form, respectively.

Reply: Thanks for the kind reminder. We have added a tabular (Table 1) about the participant information in the Participants section and a flowchart form (Figure 1) in the section of interview procedures. See Table 1 on page 4 and Figure 1 on page 5, respectively.

4b) Results may be represented in graphical form (Appendix Table A & B).

Reply：We have used a graphical form to represent the frequency distribution of the 49 pandemic metaphor categories. This figure corresponds to Appendix Table A. See Figure 4 on page 7

As regards Appendix Table B, there are 70 topics for the pandemic metaphors; it appears to be difficult to represent them in a single graphical form. So we reserved the word cloud (Figure 3) to show the distribution of the 70 topics.

Reviewer #3

It is a well-written report of extensive research work on the Covid-19 pandemic, with very well planned experimental work and parameters chosen. The overall quality of manuscript is good but still there are many grammatically and spelling mistakes in this article which must be taken care of in the revised version so that it could publish.

Reply: Thanks for your great efforts and encouraging comments. The revised manuscript was polished by a native speaker from UK (i.e. a professor in linguistics). The revised and added contents are marked in dark blue.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261968.r002
Decision Letter - Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Editor

Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, China

PONE-D-21-35424R1

Dear Dr. Deng,

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,

Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261968.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel, Editor

PONE-D-21-35424R1

Embodied Metaphor in Communication about Lived Experiences of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Wuhan, China

Dear Dr. Deng:

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. Sanjay Kumar Singh Patel

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261968.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .