From Bergamo to Boston—5 Years Later: Autoethnography and the COVID Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript uses autoethnography as a form of qualitative research to demonstrate the value of ongoing virtual communications between the two authors from Bergamo and Boston from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to five years after. The authors justified their method as an alternate mode of research for any emergency preparedness and response situation when conducting thoughtful, detailed, and controlled studies would not be possible. Previous literature often makes a distinction between analytical and evocative autoethnographic studies, emphasizing the former to counteract any potential biases associated with subjective evaluations of events. Bergamo was the epicenter of the pandemic globally while several other states in the U.S., particularly in the south, were hit harder by COVID than Boston. The authors could strengthen the analytical presentation by incorporating how the knowledge of the pandemic from different regions in the U.S. supplemented or supplanted the information from Bergamo as an almost exclusive source of data regarding how to handle COVID locally in Boston. Additionally, autoethnography is often cited to help integrate different cultural contexts. However, that is not relevant here as there is much more cultural homogeneity between Bergamo and Boston compared to COVID in the west coast, which was attributed to infection from travelers who seemed to come from China (Lines 130-143 in the manuscript). I feel that there is a potential to strengthen the methods and discussion sections keeping these points in mind.

I am providing other minor points below for the authors’ review.

Introduction, first sentence.: I suggest changing it to: “The early phase of COVID-19 is arguably….”  because current literature has ample evidence of quantitative research on COVID.

The paper is in general well-written, but additional edits could improve the paper. First, regarding punctuations, the American tradition is to place them before end of quotes. However, I see they are placed both before and after quotes (e.g., lines 33, 56, 62, 90, etc.). The practice should be consistent. Also, “et al” should be presented as “et al.” everywhere it appears in the manuscript. Additionally, on line 165, please insert “were at” between “people” and “home.”

Lines 149-154: I am not sure why bold fonts were used here. Also, the superscripted reference 9 would be better placed after Jaimes et al. on line 149.

For the quotes on lines 207-208 and lines 228-229, maybe these are well-known quotes. I will recommend use of cited references, nevertheless.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I suggested minor edits, but there is scope for additional edits.

Author Response

Please see attached

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction presented in the article is very brief. It is recommended that you explain in more detail the problem you are dealing with and why it is important to use an autoethnography. It would also be interesting to mention research similar to this one if there is any.
Regarding the methodology, the author implies that he applies an autoethnography, but he does not define himself as such, nor what type of ethnography he performs. Data collection is not clearly detailed. The analysis process used is not described either.
The results should be better structured, going deeper into critical reflection, avoiding the mere description of the facts.
I believe that this work can be a valuable contribution if the suggested changes are introduced.

Author Response

Please see attached responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript analyzes experiences that are of fundamental importance in crisis management contexts. The relevance of the topic is beyond doubt, however, in order to improve the quality of the manuscript and increase its scientific value, the following suggestions are made:

Summary. It is recommended to clearly formulate the research objective and concisely present the main results. This would improve the informativeness of the summary and help the reader to understand the essence of the research faster.

Introduction. It is suggested to structure the introduction more: explain the main concepts used in the article and emphasize the novelty and scientific relevance of the work.

Methodology. It is recommended to clearly state the principles of the applied method in the description of the method and justify their choice. It is also suggested to detail how the analysis themes were identified.

Results. It is suggested to structure the results section by distinguishing the main themes and presenting each of them based on the research data.

The overall potential of the article is assessed positively, however, the proposed corrections would allow to strengthen the clarity, consistency and scientific value of the work.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows a significant improvement. The authors have adequately addressed the main concerns raised in the previous round of review. I appreciate their efforts in strengthening the quality of the work

Author Response

We'd like to thank you for helping us identify ways to strengthen the paper. We wish this to be meaningful in some way and appreciate the time you took to assist us, rather than reject. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Sources (No. 14; 15) are incorrectly listed in the bibliography
Note No. 15 link does not work

Author Response

Comment:

1. Sources (No. 14; 15) are incorrectly listed in the bibliography

Response:  The reference for 15 is from Figure 2. As we typically submit the figures at the end of the manuscript, it is listed as the final reference as it was not otherwise cited in the text.  As the editors positioned Fig 2 in the manuscript, it could be appropriate to change the number accordingly. However, I am not certain how the editors wish to handle this and as such, I must defer to them.

As for reference 14, I have sorted out the weblink. These weblinks are definitely tricky and I really appreciate that you took the time to check them! If this was the concern, it now works (I hope! I thought they worked last time but likely this is because they are in my computer's memory). If it is in relation to the positioning in the paper, it does follow reference 13. If I have not addressed your concern, could you kindly elaborate a bit more? I would be more than happy to correct the error.

1. Note No. 15 link does not work

Response: I had cut off part of the website in the effort to change it from a hyperlink. This has now been corrected. Thank you again, for checking!