Analysis of the Delta Variant B.1.617.2 COVID-19
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, many thanks for this paper
This paper seems a commentary
Figure 1 is not adequate (evaluate to produce a figure with biorender software with the license or something else)
Data are too generic for a Review (24 references)
Paper is too short for a Review paper
Covid outbreak has followed different mathematical models (10.1016/j.medin.2020.04.007) could discuss this point with variants comparing with the first outbreak? How many patients infected by the variant are in the intensive care unit? How many are vaccinated?
I think the idea is nice, but the paper deserves more work to do.
You should restart again, describe the type of review you want to perform, clarify the aim and the scope of the paper, discuss adequately every point, and report more literature support of your data
Author Response
Dear Reviewer#1,
Thank you so much for the feedback, we appreciate the time you have taken to give us suggestions to make our paper better. We have used your guidance to extensively rework our paper and improve its quality and content. We will address all comments by reviewer:
Reviewer 1:
For the comment about how the paper seems like a commentary, we see your point in the second to last paragraph in the Discussion Section at the end of the original version. We have deleted that paragraph since it sounds more like we are commenting on what needs to be done instead of presenting objective facts. We also removed a statement in the introduction (now in the “Epidemiology” section) calling for vaccination of school age children.
For Figure 1 not seeming adequate, we have replaced it with a digitally created figure that should more clearly demonstrate the structure of the virus. We also included a more detailed description of the figure.
For data seeming generic, we have inserted more specific data on the Delta variant itself and infection rates in the new “Epidemiology” section. This should make our conclusions more pointed and backed with evidence.
As for the paper seeming too short, we have taken measures to expand upon it. We have added more information on statistics and mathematical models comparing the Delta variant to older strains. This consisted of the creation of additional pargraphs with additional references and the use of actual numbers instead of just generalizations in the new “Epidemiology” section. We additionally added more information on the symptoms that are unique to the Delta variant compared to the older variants.
We feel that after expanding on these previously-mentioned aspects, we do not need to restart the paper. Our expanded sections now address the topic of summarizing the Delta Variant’s unique features and what makes it more contagious than previous strains. The goal of this paper is to give an overview of this new strain, and making the recommended corrections more adequately accomplishes this goal.
Thank you again for the feedback and for helping to make our paper better!
Sincerely,
Shayan Shiehzadegan, Nazanin Alaghemand, Michael Fox, and Vishwanath Venketaraman
Reviewer 2 Report
the article deals with a topic of general interest and is well structured. i recommend the authors to reduce a bit the introduction.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer#2,
Thank you so much for the feedback, we appreciate the time you have taken to give us suggestions to make our paper better. We have used your guidance to extensively rework our paper and improve its quality and content. We will address all comments by reviewer:
For the suggestion about shortening the introduction, we have moved the last four paragraphs to the new section titled “Epidemiology of the delta variant”. We agree that the introduction was a little lengthy before.
Thank you again for the feedback and for helping to make our paper better!
Sincerely,
Shayan Shiehzadegan, Nazanin Alaghemand, Michael Fox, and Vishwanath Venketaraman
Reviewer 3 Report
Title: Analysis of the delta variant B.1.617.2 COVID-19
Manuscript-ID: clinpract-1413819
Thank you for the opportunity to review this very timely and interesting article. The authors reviewed available evidence on what makes the delta variant of COVID-19 more contagious including factors such as pathogenesis and types of mutations.
The following are my suggestions for authors’ consideration:
- Under the topic “Common Symptoms of the delta variant”, it would be important to comment if there are any symptoms that are unique or different in some way for the delta variant.
- Abbreviations/acronyms in figures should be expanded in a legend
- Table titles should be before the table
- It would be good to have a brief conclusion of the main message of the paper at the end.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer#3,
Thank you so much for the feedback, we appreciate the time you have taken to give us suggestions to make our paper better. We have used your guidance to extensively rework our paper and improve its quality and content. We will address all comments by reviewer:
For the suggestion of expanding the common symptoms of the Delta variant, we have done so by adding in some unique symptoms of Delta not usually seen in the other strains as reported by one study. The problem though is that many studies claim that Delta does not have unique symptoms from the previous strains. It will probably take some time for more studies to come out clarifying the unique the symptomatology of Delta from the other strains.
For the comments on the tables and figure, we have moved the headings to before the figures and have created legends explaining their components.
We have also created a “Conclusion” section at the end where we summarize key points of the paper.
Thank you again for the feedback and for helping to make our paper better!
Sincerely,
Shayan Shiehzadegan, Nazanin Alaghemand, Michael Fox, and Vishwanath Venketaraman
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The paper has been improved and implemented
Please check if you have the permission licenses for all figures. (one it seems a picture from google (the epidemiological curve)
Please provide a list of abbreviations
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for the continued feedback! Your suggestions have helped our paper to come a long way from where it started. Per your recommendation, we have made the final adjustments:
Reviewer 1:
Upon further investigation, you are absolutely right about licensing and fair use. We removed Figure 3 showing the COVID infection profile since a journal is considered a comercial use and is not covered by the Fair Use Law. We have also elminated references to Figure 3 and have instead just verbally described what the figure shows online in order to avoid issues with fair use. The remaining figures were personally created by our team with significant changes from original inspirational sources in order to be free from licensing issues.
For abbreviations, we have included a list of them right before the Introduction.
Thank you again for the continued guidance to improve our paper. We appreciate the feedback and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Shayan Shiehzadegan, Nazanin Alaghemand, Michael Fox, and Vishwanath Venketaraman
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the authors for the changes they have made to the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for the continued feedback! Your suggestions have helped our paper to come a long way from where it started. Per your recommendation, we have made the final adjustments:
Reviewer 2:
There were no further suggestions needing attention. Thank you for the feedback.
Thank you again for the continued guidance to improve our paper. We appreciate the feedback and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Shayan Shiehzadegan, Nazanin Alaghemand, Michael Fox, and Vishwanath Venketaraman
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Table titles should be above the table while figure titles should go above the figure.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for the continued feedback! Your suggestions have helped our paper to come a long way from where it started. Per your recommendation, we have made the final adjustments:
Reviewer 3:
Your suggestion of titles being before figures and tables has already been implemented in the previous edit. Perhaps confusion has arisen over the original deleted Figure 1 (hand drawn digitally touched-up figure) and the newly digitally created Figure 1. With the Track Changes tool on Microsoft Word, figures that have been deleted remain on the page until the changes have been accepted by the user. I have refrained from accepting the previous changes in order to leave that to your discretion. The original title of Figure 1, which was written as normal text under the figure and not as a separate attached text box, was kept as is; and once the deletion of the original figure is accepted, the spacing on the page should change so that the new Figure 1 is positioned underneath the title. The remaining figure and table already have the title on top. In case you wanted the explanations to go on top with the titles, we have moved those as well to keep all text about figures above them.
Thank you again for the continued guidance to improve our paper. We appreciate the feedback and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Shayan Shiehzadegan, Nazanin Alaghemand, Michael Fox, and Vishwanath Venketaraman
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
