PONE-D-22-02799COVID-19 infodemic on Facebook and containment measures in Italy, United Kingdom and New ZealandPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ETTA,

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 Apr 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,

Mohamed F. Jalloh, PhD, MPH

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 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.

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

"The authors acknowledge the 100683EPID Project “Global Health Security Academic Research Coalition” SCH-00001-3391."

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: 

"Authors WQ, GE, AG received funding from the 100683 EPID Project "Global Health Security Academic Research Coalition'' SCH-00001-3391, provided by UK/G7. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

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

4. Please upload a copy of Figures 1, 2,3 and 4, to which you refer in your text on pages 6 and 7. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

5. Please include a copy of Tables 1, 2 and 3 which you refer to in your text on pages 4 and 8.

[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: No

**********

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: Paper is clearly written and lays out methodology and findings clearly and concisely. The association between the infodemic and other factors (SI, case count) are clear but recommend including more detail in the discussion on how these interactions affect the health and health behaviors of community members.

Reviewer #2: This study uses a novel approach to examine the relationship between the information environment of a specific social media platform and broader COVID-19 epidemiological/social developments. The study findings have important implications for understanding the dynamics of infodemics in the context of other public health data, including epidemiological data.

However, there are some important methodological limitations/questions that warrant further discussion, which are listed below. Some of these limitations ideally should be addressed in the discussion section.

1.) The list of keywords used to identify Facebook posts appears to be narrow. For example, it does not have slangs or other indigenous categories likely to be used by disinformation actors or misinformed consumers. The dataset may therefore be inherently biased towards more "credible" posts.

2.) Binary categorization of "questionable" vs. "reliable" Facebook posts seems somewhat limiting. A post can have a link to a credible source and still interpret it in a misleading way, or people can spam the comment section with misleading claims even if the original post only presents credible information.

3.) The fact that the co-authors only focus on posts with a link significantly reduces the amount of data analyzed - this is a bit concerning especially because CrowdTangle is already limiting in the sense that it only picks up a subset of all posts available on Facebook i.e., public content from verified accounts.

4.) The MBFC scale used to classify posts appears to be based on the US political landscape according to their website. It's a bit unclear if this is the most appropriate system to categorize content from Italy, UK, NZ. Suggest explaining in more detail the rationale behind using this scale.

5.) Can engagement with Facebook posts also be assessed in the regression analysis? If the goal is to characterize the relationship between information consumption and epidemiological situation/pandemic media coverage, I would think that data about engagement should be included in the model as opposed to just looking at number of posts?

6. ) I suggest reconsidering making conclusive claims about "infodemic volume" or "trend of the infodemic" because this study only looks at one specific aspect of the infodemic - I don't think we can assume that data from Facebook and ONCI can be used as proxy measures for broader information environment, which includes other social media platforms, closed online groups, offline conversations, etc. (also, again, data from CrowdTangle is restricted to public content and excludes content generated by "regular" consumers").

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Atsuyoshi Ishizumi

[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.

COVID-19 infodemic on Facebook and containment measures in Italy, United Kingdom and New Zealand

PONE-D-22-02799R1

Dear Dr. ETTA,

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,

Mohamed F. Jalloh, PhD, MPH

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: