Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled “How German and Italian laypeople reason about distributive shortages during COVID-19” is interesting. Here are my comments

Comment 1: The research methods used in this manuscript are mentioned in the abstract, "(2) Methods: Over the course of four months and three assessment periods, we asked participants about their judgments on seven scenarios that addressed distributive shortages during the pandemic.", but are not clearly articulated. It is recommended that the authors point out the specific research methods used in this manuscript in the abstract.

Comment 2: This manuscript cites more literature from earlier years when describing the background of the study in the citations. It is recommended that the authors cite literature from recent years to enhance the cutting-edge and innovative nature of the content studied in the article.

Comment 3: sections of Introduction. The background of the COVID-19 pandemic seems simple. There has already been a large amount of literatures discussing this topic. There is a need to better elaborate the background of the COVID-19 pandemic. Please consider citing following papers: A preliminary assessment of the impact of COVID-19 on environment – A case study of China

Comment 4: The formatting of the images and tables in the manuscript could be improved; for example, key terms or headings in Table 1Description of the moral scenarios for all time points should be highlighted using a format such as bolding.

Comment 5: The specific interpretation of the image should be clarified. For example, what type of frequency map is referred to in Figure 1 "Distribution of the responses for each moral scenario"?

Comment 6: What is the innovative point of this paper? It is recommended that the author make a statement on this.

Comment 7: The conclusions of this manuscript should be more focused, summarizing innovative research findings and targeted policy recommendations.

Author Response

Please see attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

There is abundant literature on the impact of Covid-19 on public health, but I consider that this approach from the perspective of moral dilemma and ethical controversy in the face of unexpected crises and shortages is a welcome contribution in the scientific community. The findings of works such as the one presented can be useful for related disciplines, since scarcity will permeate the social, economic, public health and ecological context, which will imply new triages and new moral and ethical dilemmas.

 

It could be better explained why the moral dilemma is measured in different countries, why Italy is chosen (and not, for example, Spain or France). Is there a prior assumption about the moral dilemma associated with religion or values? Does the (Italian) religious and cultural tradition explain or partially explain the results with respect to the Germans in the sample?

 

I consider that it is a good work and I congratulate the authors, but I suggest that in the introductory part they justify better: Why was a comparative approach by country necessary to address the issue of the moral dilemma in the face of scarce resources in a pandemic? Why is it compared to Italians? To what extent the difference in religious tradition is associated with morality and can affect the results

 

I consider that this reasoning admits of a brief clarification in the introductory part.

 

The bibliographic references are relevant and timely, as well as current. The design of the research I consider to be correct for the proposed purposes. The results are well stated and the discussion is well linked to what was stated by other authors in previous research. The results represent a small contribution of interest to the scientific community.

 

I think it's a good job and I congratulate the authors. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have incorporated comments from the first round of review. My concerns from my previous review have been addressed. I would recommend the paper to be accepted for publication.