Psychological and financial impacts of COVID-19-related travel measures: An international cross-sectional study

Pippa McDermid; Soumya Sooppiyaragath; Adam Craig; Meru Sheel; Katrina Blazek; Siobhan Talty; Holly Seale

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271894

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionFebruary 21, 2022
14 Mar 2022 Decision Letter - Latika Gupta, Editor PONE-D-22-05305Psychological and financial impacts of COVID-19-related travel measures: An international cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Seale, 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 28 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, Latika Gupta 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 provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research. 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. 4. 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: Please detail methods using the cHERRIES checklist. Please describe survey validation and pilot testing in detail. An infographic to summarise design ad results and further directions would be welcome. Please discuss sampling bias as a major limitation. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 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 ****** 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 authors examined the prevalence and correlation of psychological and financial distress on those affected by COVID-19-related international travel restrictions and who, as a result, were unable to either, reunite with partners or immediate families, or enter/return to a country where they hold a temporary visa. The major limit of the study as assed by the authors was the absence of a baseline measure of mental health. Minors comments: Objectives of the study should be added in the end of the introduction section How did you construct and validate the survey? Did you do a pilot test before launching it? Footnotes in tables with abbreviations are lacking Figure 1 need to be improved Table 5: you could remove the p column to be more efficient. ****** 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 [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.0271894.r001
Revision 1
4 Apr 2022 Author Response Editors Comments 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. a. Titles and file names have been changed to reflect PLOS ONE’s style requirements 2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”). a. The ethics statement within the methods section has been updated to include the following: “All respondents were provided with a link to the participant information sheet informing participants of the purpose of the study, how the data will be used, the right to withdraw at any time, and information confirming that their data will remain anonymous, participants then indicated their consent to participate by clicking the button to begin the survey.” 3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide. a. We have amended the data availability statement 4. 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 include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. a. The reference list has been reviewed and it complete and correct. 5. Please detail methods using the cHERRIES checklist. a. The methods have been updated to include cHERRIES checklist criteria. 6. Please describe survey validation and pilot testing in detail. a. The methods have been updated to reflect survey validation. “Prior to survey rollout, the questionnaire was initially sent for expert reviews by co-authors who have conducted survey studies previously and are experts in the field of public health. Once their feedback was received, questions were either changed for clarity or omitted. A pilot survey was tested among five individuals including co-authors who confirmed the that the target audience would understand the questions being asked. Any confusing or challenging questions were simplified or omitted prior to the roll out, and all results collected were excluded from analysis.” 7. Please discuss sampling bias as a major limitation. a. Limitations adjusted to reflect sampling bias as a major limitation: “Most respondents were female (73.5%), educated to a tertiary level (91.9%), with an ability to read English and exhibit a competent level of computer literacy due to the online survey format, which could introduce sampling bias as it may not be fully representative of those impacted by international travel restrictions globally who may not speak English or who lack the capacity to complete the survey online.” Reviewer 1 1. Objectives of the study should be added in the end of the introduction section a. Introduction has been edited to address aims and objectives: “Therefore, building on from that initial study, this subsequent work aimed to evaluate the psychological and financial impacts of those traveller groups by analysing the prevalence of psychological and financial distress, as well as identifying the protective and risk factors associated with specific mental health outcomes of depression, anxiety, and stress.” 2. How did you construct and validate the survey? Did you do a pilot test before launching it? a. The methods have been updated to reflect survey validation: “Prior to survey rollout, the questionnaire was initially sent for expert reviews by co-authors who have conducted survey studies previously and are experts in the field of public health. Once their feedback was received, questions were either changed for clarity or omitted. A pilot survey was tested among five individuals including co-authors who confirmed the that the target audience would understand the questions being asked. Any confusing or challenging questions were simplified or omitted prior to the roll out, and all results collected were excluded from analysis.” 3. Footnotes in tables with abbreviations are lacking a. The footnotes in ALL table have been updated. 4. Figure 1 need to be improved a. Colour and font have been adjusted to comply with PLOS ONE’s figure guide 5. Table 5: you could remove the p column to be more efficient. a. We find value in including the p column, however sub-variable p values have been removed for efficiency https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271894.r002
18 May 2022 Decision Letter - Latika Gupta, Editor PONE-D-22-05305R1Psychological and financial impacts of COVID-19-related travel measures: An international cross-sectional studyPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Seale, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 02 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, Latika Gupta Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): Dear authors, please improve methods with reference to standard process of conducting survey based studies e.g. CHERRIES checklist, 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e398 [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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: Partly Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: No Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #2: Yes Reviewer #3: (No Response) ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #2: 1-"Using a key, the resulting scores are categorised as normal, mild, moderate, severe, or extremely severe depression, anxiety, or stress (DAS)." Relevant reference is required; please also state the cut-offs. 2-"Only completed surveys were analysed." There are ways of dealing with missing data. 3-"Chi-square analyses " which chi-squared test was used? 4-How was the normality of data checked? 5-Manufacturer and country of origin should be given for statistical software. 6-Which program was used for online survey? 7-"Statistical significance was p > 0.05." Please recheck. 8-How was the sample size arrived at? 9-What was the response rate? 10-Any statistical correction for multiple comparisons? Reviewer #3: The process of selection of the study participants was not very clear. Authors spoke about a previous study but the current method of selection could be explained better. Page 3 last paragraph- 2nd line - " forced separation" instead of " forced separated". Could the bias of relatively high number of female respondents be resolved by using weighted values? ****** 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 Reviewer #3: Yes:** Tulika Chatterjee, MD, MPH [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.0271894.r003
Revision 2
17 Jun 2022 Author Response Journal Requirements � Reference for the initial study has been updated with official publication citation (16). Editor comments Please improve methods with reference to standard process of conducting survey based studies e.g. CHERRIES checklist, 10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e398 � Added missing ‘Cherries checklist’ details in methods related to – Sampling design, response rate diagram and handling of incomplete questions. Reviewer comments Reviewer 2 1. "Using a key, the resulting scores are categorised as normal, mild, moderate, severe, or extremely severe depression, anxiety, or stress (DAS)." Relevant reference is required; please also state the cut-offs. a. A table has been created to reflect cut off scores and a reference has been added 2. "Only completed surveys were analysed." There are ways of dealing with missing data. a. Of the respondents who did complete questions on the outcome (DAS score), most did not complete the last page of the survey which contained all questions related to demographic information. We considered the use of multiple imputation however these methods are best suited when missing information is sparse. In our scenario, participants were missing all demographic information. We have compared the outcomes for those with and without missing demographic information and found the distribution of scores to be comparable. Therefore, we do not have a reason to believe that there are meaningful differences between the those with and without missing demographic information and are treating them as missing completely at random (Methods under “Statistical Analysis” has been updated to reflect this). A third group of respondents began the survey but did not complete questions related to outcome. As imputation methods are best used for predictor variables, we did not include any of these responders in the analysis. A new diagram has been created to reflect the breakdown of completed responses - Figure 1. Flowchart of the participant inclusion process (2).tiff. 3. "Chi-square analyses " which chi-squared test was used? a. Sentence has been updated to reflect the use of chi square test for associations 4. How was the normality of data checked? a. Continuous outcomes were visually assessed for normality. Methods has been updated to reflect this “No errors, influential outliers or multicollinearity amongst variables was identified. Diagnostics confirmed model assumptions were met.” 5. Manufacturer and country of origin should be given for statistical software. a. Citation for SPSS guided by: https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/how-cite-ibm-spss-statistics-or-earlier-versions-spss 6. Which program was used for online survey? a. Discussed and referenced in ‘Study design and study population’ section - “The online open survey was developed using survey tool Qualtrics” 7. "Statistical significance was p > 0.05." Please recheck. a. Thank you for picking this up. The sentence has been corrected to p < 0.05 8. How was the sample size arrived at? a. A minimum sample size of 385 calculated to allow for a proportion of 50% reporting moderate to severe DAS scores with a margin of error of 5% 9. What was the response rate? a. Due to the study design using opportunistic sampling, the response rate cannot be determined. 10. Any statistical correction for multiple comparisons? a. The results of the regression analyses are considered to be hypothesis generating, therefore corrections for multiple comparisons have not been applied. Reviewer 3 The process of selection of the study participants was not very clear. Authors spoke about a previous study but the current method of selection could be explained better. Page 3 last paragraph- 2nd line - " forced separation" instead of " forced separated". Could the bias of relatively high number of female respondents be resolved by using weighted values? � The opportunistic sampling strategy precludes the identification of the sampling frame, therefore we are unable to apply weighting methods. We have accounted for potential confounding by the inclusion of sex and other important demographic variables in the regression models. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271894.r004
11 Jul 2022 Decision Letter - Latika Gupta, Editor Psychological and financial impacts of COVID-19-related travel measures: An international cross-sectional study PONE-D-22-05305R2 Dear Dr. Seale, 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, Latika Gupta 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: (No Response) Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: (No Response) Reviewer #3: This is the second revision of the paper I am reviewing, authors have address all the queries and questions raised. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #3: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271894.r005
Formally Accepted
19 Jul 2022 Acceptance Letter - Latika Gupta, Editor PONE-D-22-05305R2 Psychological and financial impacts of COVID-19-related travel measures: An international cross-sectional study Dear Dr. Seale: 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. Latika Gupta Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271894.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 .