Does the Easing of COVID-19 Restrictive Measures Improve Loneliness Conditions? Evidence from Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Intro starts of well , but the research questions doesn't seems to be formed well
2. Authors still needs to differentiate between age related loneliness and due to COVID-19, which is unclear.
3. Exclusion and inclusion criteria are the primary for this study
4. No flow diagram for the process of study
5. Statistical test used aren't acceptable as per the medical science view or health professional view
6. table 1 can be moved to supplementary material
7. Where the general demographic , which should be used like , Age, Co-morb , Duration they have been alone, Part of nuclear family or otherwise.
8. Was the questionnaire validated in the japanese population ? How was it done
9. Too many tables , some of the tables arent required even , in table 7 we see age as one of the factor but we dont see the demographic variables.
10. Was a previous history of depression or psychological or cognitive factors analysed
11. Graphical abstract showing how you are adding to the current knowledge
12. Discussion appears to be precise and conclusion as equal to discussion, both should be redrafted , conclusion should be emphatic and concise.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFirstly, the paper is written very well. There were no noticeable typographical or grammatical errors in the text. However, in the text associated equations (2) - (4), Y2, Y3, and Y4 are described, instead of Y2i, Y3i, and Y4i.
In table 2, descriptive statistics of the four binary dependent variables were reported. Given the nature of the variable (categorical/binary), frequencies, rather than mean and standard-deviation should be reported.
In table 3, results of ANOVA analyses are repoted between each of the binary outcomes on the one hand, and each of the binary predictor variables on the other hand. Given then nature of these variables, ANOVAs are not appropriate (these are appropriate when the predictor/independent variable is categorical and the outcome is numeric). Instead of an ANOVA/t-test, a Chi-squaree test of association is the appropriate test to use.
Once these revisions are made, and results are reported and interpreted appropriately, the submission can be
reconsidered for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Authors should add information about their methodology in their abstract.
2. Authors should place their hypotheses or research question at the end of their introduction. They only refer to the contribution of this research but not to their own research questions.
1. What does the research address the main question? The research addresses the issue of loneliness and examines risk factors associated with loneliness during the post-COVID-19 period.2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it
address a specific gap in the field? Yes, as I marked in your review sheet, I consider the topic interesting, original, and relevant.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material? Loneliness has been a highly studied psychosocial issue during the pandemic. It is interesting to see the long-lasting effects of loneliness post Covid-19.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered? (a) As I noted in the online review form, I would like the authors to add their research questions more clearly in the abstract and at the end of their introduction. (b) Additionally, exclusion and Inclusion criteria for the study must be clearly stated.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented
and do they address the main question posed? Yes, they are
6. Are the references appropriate? Yes, they are
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. Depending on the desired format, some tables could be moved to the supplementary material. In Table 2, it would be better if the authors described/illustrated the frequencies instead of the mean and the standard deviations.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe statistics used in beyond the scope of medical professional
I request you first have a view of statistician as medical professional the type of presentation in the manuscript is not acceptable and incomprehensible
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revisions addressed the issues I reported earlier. The reviewers have done a good job in this revised manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
