Agent-Based Modeling of Epidemics: Approaches, Applications, and Future Directions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work presented a systematic review of the agent-based epidemiological modeling approach. The authors presented several pieces of background information and later discussed agent-based models. Also, the authors presented some challenges and gave a conclusion.

Major comments

If this article is a systematic review, I wonder why the authors did not present a PRISMA flow diagram, which will explicitly state how many articles was in their search, database used, inclusion and exclusion criteria, etc.

What are the keywords the authors used when searching for literature in this research direction? What were their search strategies? Why the choice of the articles cited in this work?

I think the beginning of compartmental models should include the SI model for smallpox work of Bernoulli, which is a foundation for other compartmental model extensions.

Minor comments

The font size of the work must be unified. For instance, the font size in lines 99-102 is different from others.

Unify your citation style. Sometimes you use et al. and sometimes you use []. 

I observed several grammatical errors in the text. A native English speaker should review the language of this work.

 

In conclusion, while this work is interesting, there is still additional work to be done. The authors should work on the comments above to enrich their work and I look forward to reading the revised version. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is in the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the author's response, I do not think this is a systematic review since PRISMA guidelines are not used. I think the title of this manuscript should be revised. 

Author Response

Comment:

Based on the author's response, I do not think this is a systematic review since PRISMA guidelines are not used. I think the title of this manuscript should be revised. 

Response: 

Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We fully agree with your assessment that the manuscript does not strictly follow the PRISMA guidelines, and therefore, the use of “Systematic Review” in the title may be inappropriate. As our work primarily focuses on analyzing the characteristics and advantages of agent-based epidemic modeling, its implications for intervention strategies, as well as the challenges and future directions of agent-based techniques in this domain, we have revised the title to:

“Agent-Based Modeling of Epidemics: Approaches, Applications, and Future Directions.”

We believe this new title more accurately reflects the scope and content of our work.
As no further concerns were raised, we have also carefully proofread the manuscript to ensure clarity, consistency, and improved overall presentation. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with new version presented by authors, and I think that the paper can be published as is.

Author Response

Comment:

I am satisfied with new version presented by authors, and I think that the paper can be published as is.

Response:

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s time and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted to hear that the reviewer is satisfied with the revised version and supports its publication in its current form.

As no further concerns were raised, we have carefully proofread the manuscript to ensure clarity and consistency.

Thank you for your valuable input, which has significantly strengthened our work. We look forward to the potential publication of this paper.