Exploring Urban Spatial Features of COVID-19 Transmission in Wuhan Based on Social Media Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have carefully reviewed the manuscript, I consider that the main idea that the authors wish to publish and share is very good and may be of interest to the international community, however, I consider it important that some aspects should be clarified and improved to enrich the contribution of the article, which I list below:
- What is ICT? it is important to describe the acronyms.
- Figure 1. Given the magnitude of the big problem of COVID-19, there are few data presented, at least 3 months must be considered in this histogram. The authors can take advantage of their arguments on lines 40-42.
- Line 61-62, I consider that the wording can be improved and the contribution of the work at the China country level can be contemplated.
- Section 2. Study area: Given the huge problem of COVID-19, in my opinion I consider that the study area is small, the authors should at least carry out the analysis of China.
- Table 1. For more complete information, it is good that the authors at least report confirmed cases, recovered cases, closed cases, deaths, total cases considered for the presented statistics. Currently there are several official sites that allow you to monitor this statistic by country, at least they should analyze China. For example there are these sites,
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://gisanddata.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/bda7594740fd40299423467b48e9ecf6
However, the authors are free to choose their own source of information, the suggestion is that they expand their analysis at least considering China, since it is their country of origin. And that the dataset can be verified/consulted by the international community.
6. Section 4 Results: In my opinion, I consider that their results are limited to a small area of study, given the great problem COVID-19, which is a global concern. The authors can take advantage of their arguments on lines 40-42. It is recommended to at least choose China.
7. Section 5 Discussion. It is suggested at the China level.
8. It is important that they share the source of information from where they obtained their data, to verify that the reviewers and the general public can verify that the information is trustworthy of the information, for example an internet link. (The name of the social media is not enough).
9. Section 6, Conclusions: Their conclusions should be at least considering a larger area of study, particularly China.
10. After having reviewed the entire document, I consider that their revision of the State of the Art is poor, it is recommended to thoroughly review all the related work that has recently been published in several Scientific quality Journals at the international level. For example, in their references, only two works related to COVID-19 is found.
In my opinion, I consider that the manuscript may be in the interests of the international community, however, it is important that the authors attend to all the comments and suggestions of the reviewers, this in order to improve the quality and contribution of their work.
Therefore, I consider that the manuscript is not yet ready for publication in IJGI.
Author Response
Dear reviewer :
Really thanks for your helpful and detailed comments. We believe that we have been able to address your comments and suggestions, and that our paper has been substantially improved as a result. Below, we indicate how we respond to each of your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors propose the use of Weibo help seeking data and mobile phone data to understand the spatiotemporal dynamics of the coronavirus epidemic in Wuhan. While their proposal sounds interesting and well-presented, I believe that the lack of a bigger sample of data (as they also stated as a limitation on page 10) can not provide any concrete outcomes that can be used to understand the COVID expansion or even further to inform the public-health policy. On the other hand, I am fully supportive to scientists without strong epidemiological background on their efforts to apply research on the coronavirus pandemic. Therefore, I recommend, the mining of data with more information and for longer period (e.g. 10-day tracking data cannot fully demonstrate the three stated epidemic phases) and resubmission of their paper at a later stage when they will have more concrete conclusions based on complete information.
Author Response
Dear reviewer :
Really thanks for your helpful and detailed comments. We believe that we have been able to address your comments and suggestions, and that our paper has been substantially improved as a result. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The revised work has important positive aspects. On the one hand, the topic could not be more relevant and current, and on the other hand, the data sources used are potentially very rich.
However, the article has important weaknesses.
Explanations of the materials and methods used are scarce. The sources and characteristics of the CDRs are not indicated.
The use of Kernel is appropriate to the characteristics of the problem but the application of OLS regression is not so appropriate. What the TAZ data level means and how it has been calculated (transportation analysis zone?) is not reported.
The existence of spatial correlation is not adequately addressed. Spatial econometric methods should have been used since there is clearly a possibility of contagion between contiguous areas. In addition, the explanatory variables are scarce, which generates biases in the estimates, especially when the coefficient of determination R2 is so low. Some commentary on the significance of the econometric results obtained should be included.
The availability of CDR data would allow the incorporation into the work of the effect of pre-confined mobility schemes on the spread of the virus.
Author Response
Dear reviewer :
Really thanks for your helpful and detailed comments. We believe that we have been able to address your comments and suggestions, and that our paper has been substantially improved as a result. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript again and I have detected several mistakes in some paragraphs and some images, therefore, it is necessary to improve their quality. It is recommended to address the following observations:
Q1. It is important that the authors improve the quality of the following figures: 3, 7, 8, 9 and 11.
Q2. Figure 5, Blurred legend
Q3. Figure 6, Blurred legend
Q4. Line 228-230, After a comma or semicolon, they must put a space
Q5. Line 235-241, After a comma or semicolon, they must put a space
Q6. Line 248-251, After a comma or semicolon, they must put a space.
In my opinion, the manuscript is not yet ready for publication in IJGI
Author Response
Dear reviewer :
Really thanks for your helpful and detailed comments. We have checked the manuscript and revised it according to the comments. Please see the attachment.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I believe that the new information added by the authors on the paper based on my and other reviewer's comments did clarify my concern about the small sample of data. I am happy with their response where they recognise the limitations of having such a small size and I'm now convinced that their methodology is appropriate to derive conclusions that reflect the three epidemic stages in Wuhan.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Really thanks for your comments and the recognition of our work. We will continue to explore and look forward to having more valuable discoveries in the future.
Best regards
Reviewer 3 Report
I believe that the deficiencies found in the previous version have been adequately corrected.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Really thanks for your comments. We will continue to explore and look forward to having more valuable discoveries in the future.
Best regards
