Dear Dr. Mao,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 01 2025 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.

• 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 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,

James Colborn

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 research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program (2022YFC3004404).

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. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. In the online submission form, you indicated that the data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Shishen at Beijing Normal University (Contact E-mail:shens@bnu.edu.cn).

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

5. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).’

6. We note that Figure 1, 3, 4, 5, in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1, 3, 4, 5, to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. 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?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The manuscript employs the Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) method on mobile phone location data to analyze population movements following the 2017 Jiuzhaigou earthquake. It compares these results with those obtained using the BBAC_I clustering method. The topic of the paper has practical significance for post-disaster emergency rescue, and evacuation route planning.

Overall, the manuscript demonstrates a higher levels of innovation and practical value. However, the paper could be further improved by addressing some limitations and gaps in the analysis and discussion. The following suggestions are offered:

1. It is recommended to add an analytical framework figure and a location map of the study area, to clarify the spatial context of the analysis.

2. In the introduction, the fourth paragraph presents the advantages of the EOF method and states its use in this study, while the beginning of the fifth paragraph points out the shortcomings of the current method, BBAC_I. It is suggested that the authors first discuss the deficiencies of the currently adopted method, and then summarize the advantages of the EOF method and explain why it was chosen.

3. In Section 2.2.1(1), regarding 'Eliminate grids with three or more consecutive missing values in their time series', the grids that did not capture data did so for unknown reasons. Could these unknown reasons affect the study’s results? It is recommended to include a spatial distribution map of the data to more clearly demonstrate its distribution. And visualize the spatial distribution of missing grids to assess whether their exclusion introduces regional bias.

4. The manuscript states, 'After removing these grids, we performed an inner join on the remaining grids to ensure that only spatial regions with comparable data before and after the disaster were included in the analysis.' What exactly is meant by 'inner join' in this context?

5. In Fig 1, 'Spatial intensity distribution on August 9, 2017', is the intensity describing the grid cells? It is recommended to add the official intensity map for comparison. Moreover, the figure does not clearly show the comparison between the anomaly data and the macroseismic intensity.

Currently, the figure’s caption is ambiguous. It is unclear whether the colors represent the actual seismic intensity levels or the magnitudes of the data-derived anomalies.

6. It is suggested to merge the infrastructure POIs shown in Fig 5 into Fig 3(a) and (b) to reduce the number of figures.

7. “In particular, regions with an earthquake intensity below VI generally do not suffer destructive seismic impacts and are not typically considered in seismic fortification (Nazmfar et al. 2019; Li et al. 2021). Therefore, our study area encompasses regions where the seismic intensity is above V, representing areas at greater risk of damage”. Does the seismic intensity above V represents areas at greater risk of damage?

8. Language and writing need to be further improved.

9. The format of the reference citation in the main text is not standard, please revise them.

Reviewer #2: I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript, “Analysis of Disaster-Affected Population Mobility Through Grid-Aggregated Mobile Location Data: The 2017 Jiuzhaigou Earthquake, China.” This is a really strong paper with interesting insights on methods to understand population movement after a disaster.

A few overarching comments:

1) The abstract is very clear. However, it does not mention the BBAC_I method which is a substantial part of your results and methods and the conclusion, therefore, does not compare the results across the EOF1, EOF2, and BBAC_I methods. This reviewer recommends enhancing the abstract to reflect all the methods used and the more robust conclusion you reached.

2) When did you access the mobile phone data? Or, more directly, when was the data you accessed available? I appreciate your emphasis in the introduction that the analyses you completed could be implemented quickly after a disaster. However, I do not see a detailed description of the opportunity to complete these analyses soon after the earthquake. Please provide more detail about when the data is available and when you completed the analyses.

3) There are a few results and discussion topics that are not introduced in the methods section. For example, the positive and negative EOF analyses, the Intensity zones, and the BBAC_I clusters are not presented in the methods. Please ensure that you describe in the methods all the ways that you reach the results.

4) Lines 233 – 240, 270 – 274, and 434 - 440 describe interpretations of data that lead beyond the scope of the described study. Please consider removing descriptions of data interpretations that do not directly follow from the analytic methods your study implemented.

5) The discussion presents some results that were not described in the results section. Please ensure all results are mentioned in the results section.

Specific suggestions

1) Lines 94 – 96 describe the structure of a standard scientific paper. Therefore, please consider removing these lines.

2) Lines 109 and 151, at least, references using data from August 2, the day before the earthquake. If the earthquake was on August 8, how is August 2 the day before the earthquake? Please review this detail.

3) Can you please increase the amount of detail you provide about missingness? I understand that some grids have missingness and that you removed those, but I am not fully clear on how much missingness there was. Please share more about what proportion of grids you had to remove.

4) Please consider removing lines 217 and 218 as the sentence describes the conventional purpose of a results section.

5) Line 268 references “the report”. Please ensure that the reader knows exactly what ‘report’ you are referencing.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to review a very interesting paper.

**********

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

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PlosONE_Reviewer comments_2025_05_04.pdf

Analysis of disaster-affected population mobility through grid-aggregated mobile location data: The 2017 Jiuzhaigou Earthquake, China

PONE-D-25-08571R1

Dear Dr. Mao,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

James Colborn

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents an interesting and valuable attempt to analyze disaster-affected population mobility during the 2017 Jiuzhaigou Earthquake using grid-aggregated mobile phone location data. The application of the EOF method, and its comparison with BBAC\_I, is innovative and shows potential for addressing the lack of individual trajectory information in aggregated datasets. However, the discussion section is notably weak and underdeveloped. It does not provide a systematic reflection on the strengths and limitations of the study, nor does it adequately outline prospects for future research. My specific comments are as follows:

The study relies on aggregated data from only two days, with less than half of the grids classified as valid. The discussion should acknowledge the representativeness issues, potential spatial bias, and the lack of individual trajectories, as well as how these limitations may influence the robustness of the findings.

Methodological aspects: While the application of EOF analysis is a strength, the discussion does not sufficiently address its limitations. For example, the interpretation of positive and negative anomalies may carry subjectivity; EOF analysis may be sensitive to small sample sizes, and overfitting risks should be considered. A balanced comparison with BBAC\_I, highlighting both advantages and weaknesses, would strengthen the discussion.

Results aspects The identification of evacuation routes is meaningful, but the discussion does not sufficiently connect these results to real-world observations, such as official rescue reports or documented evacuation practices. More critical reflection is needed on how well the results align—or diverge—from actual post-disaster behaviors.

Future outlook: At present, the manuscript lacks a clear vision for future research. It would benefit from explicit suggestions, such as extending analyses to longer temporal sequences, integrating multiple data sources (e.g., remote sensing, social media), combining with dynamic evacuation models, or applying the approach in real-time emergency management contexts.

I recommend major revision.

Reviewer #4: Dear Author,

1. Abstract Rewritten and Expanded: Original; focused mainly on the EOF method. Revised; now includes comparative analysis of EOF1, EOF2, and BBAC_I methods, providing clearer context and stronger conclusions.

2. Analytical Framework & Location Map: Added Figure 1 (framework) and Figure 2 (study area map) to make the methodology and spatial context clearer.

3. How the introduction is set up Better: Rearranged to first talk about BBAC_I's flaws and then talk about EOF's benefits, which makes the logic flow better.

4. Clear data processing

Explained how to deal with missing data, such as:

· How many grids were taken away (54%)

· The spatial distribution of valid and invalid grids

· Why invalid grids should not be included

5. Clearer Terms: Removed words that could mean more than one thing, like "inner join," and made the filtering method for comparing grid data more clear.

6. Clarifications about how things look and where they are:

Changed numbers to:

· Use real macroseismic intensity maps

· Make it clear that the colour of the figures has to do with the validity of the grid, not the intensity of the seismic waves.

· Combine POIs into existing maps to cut down on the number of figures.

7. Better Methodological Descriptions: Added a math explanation of BBAC_I and a way to understand what positive and negative EOF values mean.

8. Better alignment between discussion and results: moved content from the discussion to the results to stop results from leaking and removed or clarified guesses that went beyond the data scope.

9. Language and Citation Improvements: The manuscript was proofread by a native speaker, and the citation formatting was corrected to match PLOS ONE style.

10. Data Availability and Ethics Clarified:Detailed the data sharing limitations (owned by China Unicom, cannot be shared publicly) and provided contact information for data access requests.

**********

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 #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Mehmet Ali Yucel

**********