Peer Review History

Original SubmissionNovember 25, 2020
Decision Letter - Francesco Di Gennaro, Editor

PONE-D-20-37174

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance: Correlates in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ben,

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 20 January. 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Di Gennaro

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. In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the methodology used. Please clarify how participants were selected and recruited in the original survey; and whether you applied additional eligibility criteria for inclusion in this analysis (please provide a participant flowchart) .

Moreover, please ensure that all variables are defined in the Methods section, and that it is clear how these were coded for your analysis.

Finally, please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal).

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following after the Conclusion Section of your manuscript:

'Funding

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) provided financial support for the analysis of the August ANUpoll data presented in this paper.'

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.

a. 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:

'The survey data used in this paper were collected with support from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.  AIHW did not have any input to the manuscript.'

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information

Additional Editor Comments:

dear authors follow reviewer suggestion to improve your paper

[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: Authors wrote an article on a top topic. Hesitancy and resistance can stop the progress to COVID burden control

Well done

Only some minor suggestions

1- Introduction: delete line 55-68-84-102. Update data on COVID bruden worldwide at the day of resumbission

2.Methods and results No comment

3. Discussion: add some future perspectives as take home message to improve and reduce the hesitancy and resistance

and how is the role of doctors, journalist and politicians to improve it

The role of safety is also important (see and cite The efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination in older people: An umbrella review of evidence from meta-analyses of both observational and randomized controlled studies. Ageing Res Rev. 2020 Sep;62:101118. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101118. Epub 2020 Jun 18. PMID: 32565328.)

Reviewer #2: The authors have conducted a survey to identify what the potential uptake will be for the COVID-19 vaccines and provided information on the demographics of the population who are most and least likely to be vaccinated. This is an important publication. I think that it might be useful to provide examples of how trust could be built for this vaccine/or has been built for other vaccines. Likewise despite the desperate situation that COVID-19 has put us in it might also be good to comment that it affords a lesson to develop new ways to reach difficult to vaccinate communities.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Revision 1

Manuscript title: COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance: Correlates in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-20-37174

Response to Editor and Reviewer comments

Please find our specific responses to comments from the Editor and Reviewers. Thank you for your constructive comments and reviews, detailed responses are below.

Editor comments

"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"

We have reviewed PLOS ONE’s style requirements and edited the manuscripts appropriately.

"In your Methods section, please provide additional information about the methodology used. Please clarify how participants were selected and recruited in the original survey; and whether you applied additional eligibility criteria for inclusion in this analysis (please provide a participant flowchart) . Moreover, please ensure that all variables are defined in the Methods section, and that it is clear how these were coded for your analysis."

We have added additional information about how participants were selected and recruited in the original survey, and included a reference to more detailed recruitment and methodological information in the statistical analyses section:

Model 1 included demographic variables from survey respondents who completed the August 2020 wave of data collection and who had complete vaccination intention data and demographic characteristics (Fig S1). Model 2 included demographic and health variables with a measure of disability from the February 2020 ANU Poll. Model 3 included demographic and COVID-19 related variables from April and May 2020 ANUPoll. Model 4 included demographic and political and social attitudes from February and April 2020 ANUPoll. To understand the relative importance of the variables included in the models, Model 5 included demographic variables and statistically significant variables (p<0.05) from models 2-4 including variables from February, April and May ANUPoll. There was complete vaccine intention information for 3,052 participants. The number of participants in each of the models varied depending on the rate of survey completion in other ANUPolls and missing data for particular variables in the survey (Fig S1).

See: Lines 216-228 page 8

In terms of eligibility criterion for inclusion in the analysis, we have clarified this using a participant flowchart.

There are many variables included in our models, descriptions of all variables are in the Appendix that is referred to the Methods section.

We have also added more information on the coding of variables for our analysis.

"Finally, please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

Moreover, please include more details on how the questionnaire was pre-tested, and whether it was validated."

Line 174, page 7 We have provided a link to the questionnaire which can be downloaded, see

Data and copies of the questionnaire are available through the Australian Data Archive.

"In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal).

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."

Line 173-174, page 7 This has been updated: “Informed consent was provided online or verbally depending on the initial means of recruitment.”

"Thank you for stating the following after the Conclusion Section of your manuscript:

'Funding

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) provided financial support for the analysis of the August ANUpoll data presented in this paper.'

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.

a. 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:

'The survey data used in this paper were collected with support from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. AIHW did not have any input to the manuscript.'

b. Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf."

We have provided this information in the cover letter

Response to reviewers:

"Introduction: delete line 55-68-84-102. Update data on COVID bruden worldwide at the day of resumbission"

Deletions of lines 55-68-84-102 have been undertaken

Where appropriate we updated the data on COVID burden

We have also updated the references as some working papers have now been published in journals.

"Discussion: add some future perspectives as take home message to improve and reduce the hesitancy and resistance and how is the role of doctors, journalist and politicians to improve it

The role of safety is also important (see and cite The efficacy and safety of influenza vaccination in older people: An umbrella review of evidence from meta-analyses of both observational and randomized controlled studies. Ageing Res Rev. 2020 Sep;62:101118. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101118. Epub 2020 Jun 18. PMID: 32565328.)"

Line 349, page 13 Thank you for your suggestion, we had included in our discussion the following but now highlight that doctors, journalists and politicians have a role (changes in bold) :

Pre-emptively using cognitive inoculation techniques and pre-bunking techniques [16] to actively work against the likely misinformation that will be generated in the development and preparation phase of a vaccine for COVID-19 will be important but probably requires more targeted and nuanced public health messages by trusted members of the community including doctors, journalists and politicians.

Line 342, page 13 We agree that safety is important, thank you for your suggested reference. This has now been cited on page 13

"The authors have conducted a survey to identify what the potential uptake will be for the COVID-19 vaccines and provided information on the demographics of the population who are most and least likely to be vaccinated. This is an important publication. I think that it might be useful to provide examples of how trust could be built for this vaccine/or has been built for other vaccines. Likewise despite the desperate situation that COVID-19 has put us in it might also be good to comment that it affords a lesson to develop new ways to reach difficult to vaccinate communities."

Lines 349-351, page 13 Thank you for your positive review, we appreciate your suggestions.

We have added the following to the discussion:

Other strategies to engender trust among the population could include enlisting community and cultural leaders to assist in the development and spread of information [19].

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to reviewers PONE-D-20-37174.docx
Decision Letter - Francesco Di Gennaro, Editor

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance: Correlates in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population

PONE-D-20-37174R1

Dear Dr. Ben Edwards,

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,

Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

dear authors congratulations

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Authors improved thier manuscript. They wrote an very interesting paper that now can be publish.

**********

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

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Francesco Di Gennaro, Editor

PONE-D-20-37174R1

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance: Correlates in a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population

Dear Dr. Edwards:

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. Francesco Di Gennaro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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 .