PONE-D-23-00247On the optimal presence strategies for workplace during pandemics: A COVID-19 inspired probabilistic modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. DavoodiMonfared,

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 13 2023 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,

Muhammad Farhan Bashir

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“This work was partially funded by the Center of Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), which is financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Culture, and Tourism (SMWK) with tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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

“This work was partially funded by the Where2Test project, which is financed by SMWK

with tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament.

This work was also partially funded by the Center of Advanced Systems Understanding

(CASUS) which is financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research

(BMBF) and by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Culture and Tourism (SMWK) with

tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This work was partially funded by the Center of Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), which is financed by Germany’s Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) and by the Saxon Ministry for Science, Culture, and Tourism (SMWK) with tax funds on the basis of the budget approved by the Saxon State Parliament.”

Please include your amended statements 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 authors have competing interests.”

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. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

As you can see that reviewers have raised some serious issues to be resolved in your submission. Kindly pay close attention to these comments and submit revised manuscript timely.

[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: Partly

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: No

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: many thanks to the editors for the invitation. I have read your work carefully.. Specific comments are as follows.

-The abstract should briefly describe the research background and policy implications. Please add a graphical abstract

- Research gaps should be well mentioned in the introduction. A good research gap can give the reader more insight.

-how can the governments benefit economically from your research ?

-Theoretical analysis needs to reflect the authors' deeper thinking. Please improve it further and discuss it with the innovation of the paper.

-why the method you have used is better than other methods ? how did you improve it?

-Some of the most recent literature (last three years) should be considered and updated.

The following papers can be good examples to help you improve your paper to be a case can be applied worldwide:

-Dagestani, A.A.; Qing, L.; Abou Houran, M. What Remains Unsolved in Sub-African Environmental Exposure Information Disclosure: A Review. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15, 487. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15100487

-Dagestani, A. A. (2022). An Analysis of the Impacts of COVID-19 and Freight Cost on Trade of the Economic Belt and the Maritime Silk Road. International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Production Research, 33(3), 1-16.

-You G, Gan S, Guo H, Dagestani AA. Public Opinion Spread and Guidance Strategy under COVID-19: A SIS Model Analysis. Axioms. 2022; 11(6):296. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11060296

-A. A. Dagestani and L. Qing, "The Impact of Environmental Information Disclosure on Chinese Firms' Environmental and Economic Performance in the 21st Century: A Systematic Review," in IEEE Engineering Management Review, 2022, doi: 10.1109/EMR.2022.3210465.

-Zhao, S., Tian, W., & Dagestani, A. A. (2022). How do R&D factors affect total factor productivity: based on stochastic frontier analysis method. Economic Analysis Letters, 1(2), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.58567/eal01020005

-Bin He, Xiang Ma, Muhammad Nasir Malik, Riazullah Shinwari, Yaode Wang, Lingli Qing, Abd Alwahed Dagestani & Mohammed Moosa Ageli (2022) Sustainable economic performance and transition towards cleaner energy to mitigate climate change risk: evidence from top emerging economies, Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, DOI: 10.1080/1331677X.2022.2154240

-Shen, B., Yang, X., Xu, Y. et al. Can carbon emission trading pilot policy drive industrial structure low-carbon restructuring: new evidence from China. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-25169-4

-the manuscript still have a point not very clear , I hope they may explain ,what's your contribution to the theory ?you can choose the theory you think it fits better this article can be a good example could help you to understand what do I mean by "contribution to the theory" Eesley, C., Li, J. B., & Yang, D. (2016). Does institutional change in universities influence high-tech entrepreneurship? Evidence from China's Project 985. Organization Science, 27(2), 446-461. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1038

-It would be better if the authors used visual methods in the article to assist in presenting the problem or results.

-The correspondence between the conclusion and implication is not clear enough. Please polish them.

-please use the most new data

regards, go ahead

Reviewer #2: The authors developed a model to compute the optimal trade-off solutions for minimizing the risk of infection and maximizing the productivity in companies during the COVID-19 pandemic. They proposed a probabilistic analysis approach to compute the expected number of infected employees over the time by incorporating basic influential parameters such as the local incidence level, number of contacts among the employees and their average test interval and vaccination rate. The paper is good but needs some improvements. In the introduction, it should focus more on the objective of this work and the importance of it, and why it is essential for its contribution to the literature.

More updated references (year 2021, 2021, 2022, 2033) should be added to the literature section.

Recommendations should also be made in the last section of the text. For companies, adopting a Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) approach is very important in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. The importance of the SDGs in business should be mentioned as a major future implication. Here are some references you can cite and include:

Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2022). Circular economy and sustainability as a basis for economic recovery post-COVID-19. Circular Economy and Sustainability, 2(1), 1-7.

Van Zanten, J. A., & Van Tulder, R. (2020). Beyond COVID-19: Applying “SDG logics” for resilient transformations. Journal of International Business Policy, 3(4), 451-464.

Cifuentes-Faura, J. (2021). COVID-19 and the opportunity to create a sustainable world through economic and political decisions. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 18(4), 417-421.

Mattera, M., Gonzalez, F. S., Ruiz-Morales, C. A., & Gava, L. (2021). Facing a global crisis-how sustainable business models helped firms overcome COVID. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society.

Reviewer #3: This study presented a COVID-19 inspired probabilistic model to propose the optimal solutions for employees' workplace presence during pandemics necessary for employee productivity. The topic is interesting and novel, and the manuscript is well written; however, some minor modifications must be incorporated before it is accepted for publishing. I have the following comments for the author(s) to consider;

1. Add the statistical results of the experiment performed in the abstract.

2. The introduction weakly documents the need and motivation for this study and designing the model.

3. The contributions of this work to the existing literature must be incorporated into the introduction section.

4. The author(s) should elaborate on the benefits of the designed model it can provide to an organization and compare it with previously designed models in more detail, which are discussed in the related work section.

5. Correct Figure and Fig. throughout the manuscript. The figure caption should be the same as used in the text (either Figure or Fig.) according to the guidelines of the Journal.

6. The implications of this study and model to the companies or organizations should be discussed in the conclusion.

7. Line 11. "number of employees presented" should be "number of employees presence".

8. Line 314 includes 11. The 11 should be either Eq.(11) or as defined by the author(s).

9. Line 435 in the conclusion section includes "First". I do not find any "second" or "third" in conclusion.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-23-00247R1On the optimal presence strategies for workplace during pandemics: A COVID-19 inspired probabilistic modelPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. DavoodiMonfared,

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 Jun 08 2023 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,

Muhammad Farhan Bashir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: well done

Reviewer #2: The manuscript has improved a lot. I only recommend that authors improve the quality of figures before publication.

**********

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: Abd Alwahed Dagestani

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.

On the optimal presence strategies for workplace during pandemics: A COVID-19 inspired probabilistic model

PONE-D-23-00247R2

Dear Dr. DavoodiMonfared,

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,

Muhammad Farhan Bashir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: