From Individual Motivation to Geospatial Epidemiology: A Novel Approach Using Fuzzy Cognitive Maps and Agent-Based Modeling for Large-Scale Disease Spread

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Song et al.'s study explores disease spread modeling with innovative methodologies, showing the intricate link between individual behavior and disease dynamics and offering a wide array of information for epidemiologic strategies. However, there are a few comments to consider below, particularly that the discussion requires substantial improvement and the introduction could be streamlined

 

·       Early part of the introduction can be summarised to focus more quickly on the research gap and objectives. This also ensures smooth transitions between discussing COVID-19 specifics, historical context, and modelling techniques.

·       Explain "sub-exponential increase" for clarity.

·       Highlight novelty

·       Apart from being Introdction bit lengthy, it is informative and provides substantial detail on the background and the theoretical context of the study.’

·       Results are well articulated.

·       Discussion requires significant improvement to strethen the argument in the paper

·       how well the simulation captured the overall trend of the outbreak, including the timing and magnitude of the peak? any discrepancies between the simulated data and the actual data potential reasons for these differences eg unmodelled factors?

·       how the model's temporal and spatial properties contributed to a more accurate simulation of the epidemic's spread in densely populated urban areas?

·       limitations of the FCM-ABM model such as the uniform behavior of agents or simplified representation of environmental factors? 

·       practical implications of your findings for public health strategies in urban areas eg teh model could inform interventions to control the spread of infectious diseases in similar settings or othe epidemiological context

·       Any areas for future research to improve the model?

·       how different wards within Bengaluru Urban District were affected differently, and what factors might explain these variations? Impact of socio-economic factors on the spread of the virus and the effectiveness of public health interventions

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attachment

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is can be improved

Author Response

See attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors  

Dear Author,

The manuscript is well revised. However, I would like to state again that the discussion is not articulated well. I believe the paper is well constructed and has an important message, particularly in its contextual application. Please review the discussion with an integration of literature.

For instance, the author has only four references in the discussion and none in the broader impact section. Is the literature that scarce in this area?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your advice on the discussion section.

I re-phrased the paragraphs and added several references. Majorly emphasizing current limitations, and the impacts of this work on forecasting and spatial analysis of pandemic spreading.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been revised according to the comments, and I recommend to accept it

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is ok

Author Response

Thank you!

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Most of the comments raised have been resolved promptly. However, I believe the discussion section of the manuscript is not up to the standard compared to other parts of the paper. The discussion should critically analyze the findings of your study. For instance, if the discussion is limited to just two paragraphs, it may imply that the study yielded no significant impact warranting discussion and translation. However, I do not believe this is the case. Therefore, I highly recommend revising the discussion section and elaborating on it further.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

I really appreciate your sincere suggestions. I agree with you on the quality of the discussion section could be improved. I didn't make limitations of this work clear and intuitive in that section.

So I rephrased the discussion section and the future work subsection, description of each paragraph is:

Discussion:

Advantages of this work

Limitations of this work, reasons, and analysis.

    Future Work:

    Possible improvement approach on each limitation mentioned in the above.

 

Hope it can address your concerns this time.

Again, thanks for your precious review and suggestions!