Relevance of COVID-19 vaccine on the tourism industry: Evidence from China

Fredrick Oteng Agyeman; Zhiqiang Ma; Mingxing Li; Agyemang Kwasi Sampene; Israel Adikah; Malcom Frimpong Dapaah

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0269200

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 28, 2021
9 Feb 2022 Decision Letter - Helen Onyeaka, Editor PONE-D-21-34514The Relevance of the COVID-19 vaccine on the Tourism Industry: Evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Agyeman, 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 Mar 26 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, Helen Onyeaka, PhD 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 [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: No 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: 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: I find the topic "The Relevance of the COVID-19 vaccine on the Tourism Industry: Evidence from China" current and relevant. The authors seek to establish the relevance of COVID-19 vaccine and the impact of the pandemic on China’s tourism. The authors employ a specification that uses vaccine doses as the dependent variable and the death and recorded new cases as independent variables. Comments: 1. The authors employ a linear regression model. It is easy to check the underlying assumptions of the classical linear regression models. For instance one can plot the residuals against the fitted values in order to ascertain if heteroskedasticity is present. I recommend the authors to prove why a linear model was a parsimonious choice for this study. 2. Residual normality can also be checked via quantile-quantile plot or an appropriate statistical test. 3. It will also improve the paper if the authors can compare the predicted values of the model against the actual response variable (in a plot) to see if the model approximates the actual data. In summary, I am missing some residual diagnostics analysis using appropriate statistical tests / plots which provides an indication about the performance of your model. Otherwise the results cannot be trusted. 4. Although well structured, the paper needs 'English Editing'. For example the opening sentence in the introduction needs to be reconstructed. In some cases authors wrote "independence variables" instead of independent variables" etc. In the introduction the authors also wrote that 'The availability of vaccines calms down citizens' nerves and improves the citizens' psychological and mental health', such assertions are either tested and proved or cite existing studies to such assertions. Reviewer #2: The title should read: Relevance of COVID-19 vaccine on the Tourism Industry: Evidence from China The Key words should read: COVID-19 vaccine, Tourism Industry, infection, new cases; new death, China Methodology Section This section seems interesting as the flow of its introduction rolls out well. Results and Discussion Virtually all your tables lack appropriate specific titles. For example, Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on what? Table 3: ANOVA of what; Table 4: Coefficients of what? Still on the Results and Discussion section, the subsections/subtopics are not properly captured. For instance, “the pattern of Vaccine doses and impact on Death cases and New reported cases in China’ need to be recast. More so, there is poor coherence between your results and discussion section More so, majority of the tables conventionally lacks a source at the foot of the table Can the figures mentioned in the results and discussion section be restored from beyond the references section? Note that the first column in Table 1 should have a title which is suggested to be Measure Your references are not bad, but there is room to recheck if each of them aligns with the accepted referencing style. More so, the researchers should ensure that all the citations are captured in the reference section. The manuscript paper is accepted with major corrections. ****** 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: 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. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Relevance of the COVID-19 vaccine on the Tourism IndustryEvidence from CHINA.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269200.r001
Revision 1
25 Mar 2022 Author Response Authors' Responses to the Editor and Reviewers' Comments Submission of Revised Paper: The Relevance of the COVID-19 vaccine on the Tourism Industry: Evidence from China (PONE-D-21-34514). To begin with, the authors would like to express their profound gratitude to the Editors and the Reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions raised to improve the manuscript. The responses to the Editors' and Reviewers' suggestions are given as follows. Editor's comments 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. Authors' Responses Thank you very much for your valuable information. Please, the authors have carefully revised the manuscript to meet PLOS ONE's publication criteria fully. The authors have answered and incorporated all the valuable suggestions and comments raised by the Editor and the Reviewers within the current version of the manuscript. Also, the authors have further conducted a round of proofreading of the entire manuscript. The authors are very grateful for your acceptance of the current version of the manuscript for publication in your highly cherished journal. Authors' responses to Reviewer's comments: Reviewer 1 Comments (1) I find the topic "The Relevance of the COVID-19 vaccine on the Tourism Industry: Evidence from China" current and relevant. The authors seek to establish the relevance of COVID-19 vaccine and the impact of the pandemic on China's tourism. The authors employ a specification that uses vaccine doses as the dependent variable and the death and recorded new cases as independent variables. Authors' Response: Thank you very much for your commendation. The authors are very grateful. Comments (2) The authors employ a linear regression model. It is easy to check the underlying assumptions of the classical linear regression models. For instance, one can plot the residuals against the fitted values in order to ascertain if heteroskedasticity is present. I recommend the authors to prove why a linear model was a parsimonious choice for this study. Authors' Response: Thank you very much for your needful comments. The authors chose the linear regression model because of its widely recognized scientific methods that are reliable for analyzing and predicting data. The properties of linear regressions facilitate easy understanding and replicability. Further, the authors selected the linear regression model for this study analysis because of its significant explanatory predictive power. The Linear regression model helped explain the study data with a minimum number of parameters or predictor variables. Also, the result of this study indicated no heteroskedasticity or outliers. Comments (3): Residual normality can also be checked via quantile-quantile plot or an appropriate statistical test. Authors' Response: The authors are very grateful for your valuable comments to improve the manuscript. We highly agree with your constructive comments and have incorporated the quantile-quantile plot within the current version of the manuscript. We have added the Q-Q plots as Supplementary material S3 Fig and S4 Fig. Also, this study’s analysis was formally conducted using the Shapiro-Wilk test, which helped check the data's normality assumptions. Thank you Comments (4): It will also improve the paper if the authors can compare the predicted values of the model against the actual response variable (in a plot) to see if the model approximates the actual data. In summary, I am missing some residual diagnostics analysis using appropriate statistical tests / plots which provides an indication about the performance of your model. Otherwise, the results cannot be trusted. Authors' Response: The authors are very grateful for your constructive comments. The authors have incorporated the analysis of the residual statistics and collinearity diagnostic within the current version of the manuscript Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Further supplementary material S2 Fig Residual versus covariate plot has been included in the current version of the manuscript. Comments (5): Although well structured, the paper needs 'English Editing'. For example, the opening sentence in the introduction needs to be reconstructed. In some cases, authors wrote "independence variables" instead of independent variables" etc. In the introduction the authors also wrote that 'The availability of vaccines calms down citizens' nerves and improves the citizens' psychological and mental health', such assertions are either tested and proved or cite existing studies to such assertions. Authors' Response: The authors are very grateful for your needful comments to improve the manuscript. Please the authors have made round proofreading of the entire manuscript. Thank you Reviewer 2 Comments (1): The title should read: Relevance of COVID-19 vaccine on the Tourism Industry: Evidence from China Authors' Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. The authors have incorporated your valuable suggestions within the manuscript. Comments (2): The Key words should read: COVID-19 vaccine, Tourism Industry, infection, new cases; new death, China Authors' Response: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestion to improve the manuscript. The authors have incorporated your valuable suggestions. Comments (3): Methodology Section. This section seems interesting as the flow of its introduction rolls out well. Authors' Response: Thank you very much for your commendation. The authors are very grateful. Comments (4): Results and Discussion. Virtually all your tables lack appropriate specific titles. For example, Table 1: Descriptive Statistics on what? Table 3: ANOVA of what; Table 4: Coefficients of what? Authors' Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. The authors have made modifications to the table titles accordingly within the manuscript. Comment (5) Still on the Results and Discussion section, the subsections/subtopics are not properly captured. For instance, “the pattern of Vaccine doses and impact on Death cases and New reported cases in China’ need to be recast. Authors’ Response: Thank you very much for your needful comments to improve the manuscript's content. The authors have incorporated your valuable comments within the current version of the manuscript. Comment (6) More so, there is poor coherence between your results and discussion section Authors’ Response: Thank you very much for your constructive suggestion to improve the manuscript content. The authors have restructured the results and discussion. Comments (7): More so, majority of the tables conventionally lacks a source at the foot of the table Authors’ Response: The authors are very grateful for your needful comments and have incorporated your valuable suggestions. The authors generated all the output from the JASP software and have respectively provided footnotes for the tables required. Also, S1 Table, Australia’s total international tourism outbound from 2008 – 2020, has been provided with a reference source. Comments (8): Can the figures mentioned in the results and discussion section be restored from beyond the references section? Authors’ Response: Thank you very much for your needful question. The authors have restored all the figures' captions within the manuscript. Also, all the figures have been prepared based on the journal's formatting style (using PACE) and have been included in the figure file accordingly. Comments (9): Note that the first column in Table 1 should have a title which is suggested to be Measure Authors’ Response: Thank you very much. The authors appreciate your valuable suggestions to improve the manuscript. Please, we have incorporated your needful comments within the manuscript. Comments (10): Your references are not bad, but there is room to recheck if each of them aligns with the accepted referencing style. More so, the researchers should ensure that all the citations are captured in the reference section. Authors’ Response: The authors are very grateful for your constructive comments to improve the manuscript. The authors have rechecked and aligned all the references to capture all the citations in the references section according to PLOS ONE Journal referencing style. Comments (11): The manuscript paper is accepted with major corrections. Authors’ Response: Thank you for your valuable recommendation to accept our manuscript upon major corrections. The authors have comprehensively answered all questions and implemented the comments and suggestions made by the Editor and the reviewers. Therefore, we are hopeful that this current version is acceptable for publication and satisfies PLOS ONE publication criteria. Thank you very much Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269200.r002
17 May 2022 Decision Letter - Helen Onyeaka, Editor Relevance of COVID-19 vaccine on the tourism industry: Evidence from China PONE-D-21-34514R1 Dear Dr. Oteng Agyeman, 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, Helen Onyeaka, PhD 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 #1: 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: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 addressed all the comments raised regarding the missing diagnostics such as plot of residuals. The authors do this by adding supplementary graphs to the paper. ****** 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: Yes:** Dr Phemelo Tamasiga https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269200.r003
Formally Accepted
10 Aug 2022 Acceptance Letter - Helen Onyeaka, Editor PONE-D-21-34514R1 Relevance of COVID-19 vaccine on the tourism industry: Evidence from China Dear Dr. Oteng Agyeman: 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. Helen Onyeaka Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0269200.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 .