Affiliation in times of pandemics: Determinants and consequences

Guillaume Dezecache; Johann Chevalère; Natalia Martinelli; Sandrine Gil; Clément Belletier; Sylvie Droit-Volet; Pascal Huguet

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306310

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 16, 2024
16 Apr 2024 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: REBUTTAL.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306310.r001
31 May 2024 Decision Letter - Pat Barclay, Editor PONE-D-24-10529Affiliation in times of pandemics: Determinants and consequencesPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dezecache, 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. The reviewers and I all agree that the manuscript is greatly improved. Reviewer 2 points out a few minor issues that require revision, but these should be easy enough to address in a revised manuscript. I am formally recommending “Minor Revisions” to indicate that these revisions must be done, but I’d like to also note that if they addressed satisfactorily then the manuscript should be publishable. I look forward to reading the revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 15 2024 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, Pat Barclay 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 supported by the French ANR (ANR-Flash COVID-19)." 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. Please expand the acronym “ANR” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. 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. [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: 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: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 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 have been asked to treat this submission as a resubmission of a previous submission (manuscript ID PONE-D-22-34262). The comments that I raised in that previous version have been satisfactorily addressed. Reviewer #2: Review of “Affiliation in times of pandemics: Determinants and consequences” R&R Manuscript number: PONE-D-24-10529 In the (revised version of this)manuscript, the authors assess some factors influencing affiliative needs and compliance with public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic in France. The manuscript presents an interesting case study of the circumstances and cultural changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. I found it very interesting, and the revisions that the authors have made to it have greatly improved its quality. However, I think a few things need to be further addressed. I, therefore, recommend a minor revision of this manuscript. Below I provide details about my concerns, enumerated for ease of communication during the review process. 1. I appreciated the time and revisions that the authors have put into the introduction thus far. However, I think a little more space in the introduction is needed to describe horizontal social comparison. The paragraph describing this work (lines 59-65) is a little underwhelming. The only suggestion here that I have would be to unpack a little more information about how horizontal comparison is thought to reduce anxiety and uncertainty as well as the work on emergency affiliations (I think I can make an educated guess about how the variables are related, but it would be helpful to have this made more explicit for those who are not aware of the horizontal aspect of social comparison). 2. Lines 82-83 - it would be helpful to make the definition of social comparison more explicit that social comparison is about relying on what others think, feel, and how they behave so that individuals have more information about what appropriate behavior would be. 3. Lines 87 - 90. The results of these findings feel underexplained. I struggled a little to see the connection to the rest of the paragraph (again, I could make an educated guess about what you were insinuating, but it would be helpful to make this explicit). 4. I think the explanation for using the term gender in the introduction is still underdeveloped (Lines 91 - 107). The explanation in the response to reviewers and the discussion is much better. I would suggest rewriting this to me more like these sections (because you make it clearer why gender is the more appropriate term, instead of saying, “we used the terms because other people were not aware of the difference). 5. I find the method section to be very well done and clear. I appreciate the effort that the authors have put into revising this section. 6. Line 278. You refer to the bolded pink lines in Figure 1, but figure 1 does not have bolded pink lines. Do you mean figure 2? 7. With regard to figures, I greatly appreciate the revisions to these. They are very clear and easy to understand. The color coding and new line labels really make it easier to understand the results. 8. Line 335, note subheading. I’m not sure that the subheading is necessary, since the paragraph that follows it feels clearly like a method/ result paragraph. 9. Line 403. There seems to be a labeling error, so that there are two table 1’s. This table should be table 2 (which also makes the following tables incorrectly ordered as well). 10. I appreciate the effort that the authors have put into rewriting their results. The summary paragraphs greatly increase the interpretability of the results to a more novice audience. 11. I appreciate the revisions to the limitation section, these make the paper feel more whole and give many important considerations for future research. 12. Looking at the supplemental materials, I find these much easier to interpret and very helpful. As per my policy, I sign all of my reviews. The author should feel free to contact me if they have any questions or points of clarification regarding our review. Jessica D. Ayers jessicaayers@boisestate.edu ****** 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: Jessica D Ayers ******** [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.0306310.r002
Revision 1
11 Jun 2024 Author Response Journal 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 This has been done. 2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: "This work was supported by the French ANR (ANR-Flash COVID-19)." 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. This has been done. 3. Please expand the acronym “ANR” (as indicated in your financial disclosure) so that it states the name of your funders in full. This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf. This has been done. 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. This has been done. Reviewer #1: I have been asked to treat this submission as a resubmission of a previous submission (manuscript ID PONE-D-22-34262). The comments that I raised in that previous version have been satisfactorily addressed. We thank Reviewer #1 for their comments, which much improved our manuscript. Reviewer #2: In the (revised version of this) manuscript, the authors assess some factors influencing affiliative needs and compliance with public health guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic in France. The manuscript presents an interesting case study of the circumstances and cultural changes that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. I found it very interesting, and the revisions that the authors have made to it have greatly improved its quality. However, I think a few things need to be further addressed. I, therefore, recommend a minor revision of this manuscript. Below I provide details about my concerns, enumerated for ease of communication during the review process. We thank Reviewer #2 for a diligent reading and their new comments. We replied to them below. We also made the changes accordingly in the revised version of the manuscript. 1. I appreciated the time and revisions that the authors have put into the introduction thus far. However, I think a little more space in the introduction is needed to describe horizontal social comparison. The paragraph describing this work (lines 59-65) is a little underwhelming. The only suggestion here that I have would be to unpack a little more information about how horizontal comparison is thought to reduce anxiety and uncertainty as well as the work on emergency affiliations (I think I can make an educated guess about how the variables are related, but it would be helpful to have this made more explicit for those who are not aware of the horizontal aspect of social comparison). We expanded this part, see lines 53-75. 2. Lines 82-83 - it would be helpful to make the definition of social comparison more explicit that social comparison is about relying on what others think, feel, and how they behave so that individuals have more information about what appropriate behavior would be. We found your wording excellent and took the liberty to paraphrase your suggestion (see lines 54-56). Thank you! 3. Lines 87 - 90. The results of these findings feel underexplained. I struggled a little to see the connection to the rest of the paragraph (again, I could make an educated guess about what you were insinuating, but it would be helpful to make this explicit). We rephrased this paragraph to improve its coherence (see lines 97-105). 4. I think the explanation for using the term gender in the introduction is still underdeveloped (Lines 91 - 107). The explanation in the response to reviewers and the discussion is much better. I would suggest rewriting this to me more like these sections (because you make it clearer why gender is the more appropriate term, instead of saying, “we used the terms because other people were not aware of the difference). Thanks for this suggestion. We reckoned our sample would likely have not made a difference, which we believe would have been critical. This is explained lines 118-127. 5. I find the method section to be very well done and clear. I appreciate the effort that the authors have put into revising this section. Thank you! 6. Line 278. You refer to the bolded pink lines in Figure 1, but figure 1 does not have bolded pink lines. Do you mean figure 2? You are right – this has been corrected. Thank you! 7. With regard to figures, I greatly appreciate the revisions to these. They are very clear and easy to understand. The color coding and new line labels really make it easier to understand the results. Thank you! 8. Line 335, note subheading. I’m not sure that the subheading is necessary, since the paragraph that follows it feels clearly like a method/ result paragraph. We removed the subheading – thanks for the suggestion! 9. Line 403. There seems to be a labeling error, so that there are two table 1’s. This table should be table 2 (which also makes the following tables incorrectly ordered as well). This has been corrected – thanks. 10. I appreciate the effort that the authors have put into rewriting their results. The summary paragraphs greatly increase the interpretability of the results to a more novice audience. Thanks again for helping us! 11. I appreciate the revisions to the limitation section, these make the paper feel more whole and give many important considerations for future research. Thank you! 12. Looking at the supplemental materials, I find these much easier to interpret and very helpful. Thank you! Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: REBUTTAL.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306310.r003
17 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Pat Barclay, Editor Affiliation in times of pandemics: Determinants and consequences PONE-D-24-10529R1 Dear Dr. Dezecache, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Pat Barclay Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306310.r004
Formally Accepted
15 Aug 2024 Acceptance Letter - Pat Barclay, Editor PONE-D-24-10529R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Dezecache, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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. Pat Barclay Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306310.r005

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 .