Social Response and Measles Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Social Response and Measles Dynamics

Stats

Major comments:
1. The title should be short.

2. The abstract is clumsy and unclear. It should be concisely written to make the objective clear and brief the outcome (possibly, five to six sentences for this article). Please write sentences with indefinite verbs.

3. The introduction section, especially the literature review on the considered Negative Binomial (ZINB) Regression Model, are very poor and unconvincing. This section needs to be rewritten completely new with appropriate references and statements.

4. The author has not studied any dynamics. They have given plot for particular choice of parameters and this cannot be regarded as clear study.

5. Plenty of irrelevant references are included, while significantly related/required works are missed.

6. What is the main contribution of this paper? It should be explained in detail.

7. Generally well-written paper, to improve the quality of the paper, please check your sentences and/or English one more time.
8. Keywords should not include the word that existed in the title.
9. It is better to add some ideas for future work in the Section of the Conclusion.

10. Have you employed any assumptions? Please explain.

11. Please check abstract and correct verb time.

*Please check the end of expression including "comma" and "point" in all paper.

12. The authors need to add a section as discussion and results. For offered models insert a reference.

13. The paper lacks physical prospects. Add physical explanation in the discussion section.

14. The graphical visualization is not clear I am trying to understand the behaviour of the graphs but the given information according to my point of view is not sufficient share the source how we visualize the graphs and check their accuracy. So, paste all computational work here.

15-Some new and important developments for searching for dam deformation monitoring data could be added in introduction: The results of this manuscript may well complement the existing literature as for example:

"Optimal economic scheduling of microgrids considering renewable energy sources based on energy hub model using demand response and improved water wave optimization algorithm." Journal of Energy Storage 55 (2022): 105311.

"Robust multi-objective optimal design of islanded hybrid system with renewable and diesel sources/stationary and mobile energy storage systems." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 148 (2021): 111295.

"Reliability constraint stochastic UC by considering the correlation of random variables with Copula theory." IET Renewable Power Generation 13.14 (2019): 2587-2593.

"Robust optimization based optimal chiller loading under cooling demand uncertainty." Applied Thermal Engineering 148 (2019): 1081-1091.

A comprehensive review of cyber-attacks and defense mechanisms for improving security in smart grid energy systems: Past, present and future." Electric Power Systems Research 215 (2023): 108975.

minor revision

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

What is the primary focus of this study on measles vaccination and prevalence in Germany for the years 2008-2012?

How does the probability of a local outbreak relate to vaccination coverage, according to the study's findings?

In what way does the scale of a measles outbreak depend on vaccination coverage, as revealed in the research?

What are the observed effects of local outbreaks on individuals' willingness to be vaccinated, and is there a time delay in this response?

How does the deterministic delay model help in understanding the consequences of the statistical findings on infection dynamics, particularly concerning oscillations and vaccination coverage?

What does the stochastic version of the model reveal about the impact of negative feedback on vaccination coverage variance?

In the context of this study, what are the implications and relevance of the findings regarding measles vaccination and outbreak dynamics?

Add in bibliography “The dynamics of novel corona virus disease via stochastic epidemiological model with vaccination” “Probing families of optical soliton solutions in fractional perturbed Radhakrishnan–Kundu–Lakshmanan model with improved versions of extended direct algebraic method” “Investigating Families of Soliton Solutions for the Complex Structured Coupled Fractional Biswas–Arshed Model in Birefringent Fibers Using a Novel Analytical Technique” “Approximate analytical methods for a fractional-order nonlinear system of Jaulent–Miodek equation with energy-dependent Schrödinger potential”

The study mentions a comparison of bit error rate (BER) performance. Could you provide more details about the specific results of this comparison and how the proposed iterative algorithm outperforms other schemes in various channel correlation scenarios?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents a study that has the potential to deliver an effective example of combining data analysis and modeling to detect an empirical pattern and project its significance beyond a simple interpretation of statistical parameters. However, in short, it is not prepared in a manner suitable for publication. Questions are not clearly defined. No hypothesis is presented. Results, discussion, and methods are mixed together in no particular order. The wrong figures are shown. The appendices are unnecessary. The stochastic model needs more justification or could be removed from the paper.

I believe all of these problems can be remedied. Most are a matter of organization. Most of the rest come down to writing style. But they are pervasive.

My detailed comments are included as annotations in an attached copy of the manuscript. They are a little unfiltered at times. Please take the notable tone of frustration as constructive evidence that work remains to be done but is worth doing.

Something I think I did not detail in the pdf is the explanation of the deterministic model. This is an important part of the paper and should be dry and straightforward. 1) The model comprises the dynamics of both public opinion and infections. 2) Public opinion is modeled as.... 3) Infection dynamics are modeled by standard methods (cite), where vaccination rate is a function of public opinion. 4) A delay term controls the lag in feedback between infections and public opinion, in turn affecting the delay between outbreaks and any response in vaccination rate.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English and quality of writing is generally good. I can see some inconsistency that may come from the contributions of different authors. Please work to improve consistency and improve efficiency.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well written and can be published now.

Author Response

Thanks for your positive report!

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have improved the organization and presentation of the manuscript substantially. There is still a fairly high level of departure from what consider traditional organization of a paper, but it is practical. Typographical errors need correction throughout. Tables are oddly formatted with captions at the bottom and Figure 1 should either be improved (higher resolution, remove title from plot, expand caption) or removed. I think I favor the latter option, as it is probably sufficient to say in the text that examination of the scree plot supported the use of three clusters.

I think the authors could take the opportunity to expand their discussion somewhat. A few sentences about how other studies have explained periodic infection dynamics would be good. Where the authors seem to diminish the importance of their finding at L. 425 with the conjecture that periodic changes in contact patterns may be more important, I encourage them to instead think more specifically about when the social component could be a dominant factor and how it might interact with other forces.

A number of more detailed comments or thoughts are in the attached pdf.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English is good. At a higher level, there are awkward sentences and some informal or conversational language that could be tightened up. In my comments on the pdf, I decided not to spend time pointing out typos, for the most part.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf