Sustainability and the Social Representation of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Missing Link
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I advise authors to use Literature review instead of State of the art for better comparability
Also, figure 1 is a table and should be redone by authors
Line 303, I advise the authors to replace "session" with section
You should describe the sample selection in 4.1
Also, table 1 has some shadowing to the text which is specific to low resolution figures. Please make sure that table 1 is a table with text in the table not an image.
Under each table which has calculus, add as a source the software used or make a reference to it in the text. Is the blue line in table 2 needed? Does it have a special meaning. If not, keep the table simple. The same with using Bold.
If it is possible, ensure a better quality for figure 5
Please check the formatting for the references for this journal.
Author Response
Please, see the answers in italics.
==
# REVIEWER 1
I advise authors to use Literature review instead of State of the art for better comparability.
It was done. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
Also, figure 1 is a table and should be redone by authors
It was done. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
Line 303, I advise the authors to replace "session" with section
It was done. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
You should describe the sample selection in 4.1
The sample selection was described. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
Also, table 1 has some shadowing to the text which is specific to low resolution figures. Please make sure that table 1 is a table with text in the table not an image.
It was done. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
Under each table which has calculus, add as a source the software used or make a reference to it in the text. Is the blue line in table 2 needed? Does it have a special meaning. If not, keep the table simple. The same with using Bold.
It was done. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
If it is possible, ensure a better quality for figure 5
It was done. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
Please check the formatting for the references for this journal.
It was done. See the revised version of the paper.
Thanks.
Reviewer 2 Report
I would like to thank the author/s for the opportunity to revise the paper entitled “Sustainability and the Social Representation of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Missing Link” which aims at providing a clear understanding of how the meaning of the COVID-19 pandemic has changed in the past year for the Brazilian society through the usage of Social Representation Theory.
Overall, the article flows fluently throughout the text. However, there are some limitations than need to be overcome.
The “State-of-the-Art” section, which I presumably associate with the theoretical framework of the paper should be better clarified and strengthened.
The methodology section is quite unclear. The author mention that this article is a replication (which is correct), in the methodology section the authors vaguely claim the usage of “a qualitative quantitate approach” as the methodology employed (page 5, lines 240-241).
I strongly advise the authors to read the article published by Tsang & Kwan (1999) where the author explore six different types of replications: Checking of analysis; Reanalysis of data; Exact replication; Conceptual extension; Empirical generalization; Generalization and extension. Replications have to be necessarily based upon two fundamental assumptions. First, the research method used in both the original and the replication should be the same. Second, a replication is assumed to be carried out at a different time after the original study has been completed. Therefore, I would strongly recommend reading the classification made by Tsang & Kwan and restructure the methodology section accordingly.
Overall, the paper has a great potential which could be better shown once the abovementioned hindrances will be overcome.
Author Response
Please, see the answers in italics.
==
# REVIEWER 2
I would like to thank the author/s for the opportunity to revise the paper entitled “Sustainability and the Social Representation of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Missing Link” which aims at providing a clear understanding of how the meaning of the COVID-19 pandemic has changed in the past year for the Brazilian society through the usage of Social Representation Theory.
Overall, the article flows fluently throughout the text. However, there are some limitations than need to be overcome.
The “State-of-the-Art” section, which I presumably associate with the theoretical framework of the paper should be better clarified and strengthened.
It was done.
The Literature Review section of the revised version of the paper was better clarified and strengthened.
Thanks.
The methodology section is quite unclear. The author mention that this article is a replication (which is correct), in the methodology section the authors vaguely claim the usage of “a qualitative quantitate approach” as the methodology employed (page 5, lines 240-241).
I strongly advise the authors to read the article published by Tsang & Kwan (1999) where the author explore six different types of replications: Checking of analysis; Reanalysis of data; Exact replication; Conceptual extension; Empirical generalization; Generalization and extension. Replications have to be necessarily based upon two fundamental assumptions. First, the research method used in both the original and the replication should be the same. Second, a replication is assumed to be carried out at a different time after the original study has been completed. Therefore, I would strongly recommend reading the classification made by Tsang & Kwan and restructure the methodology section accordingly.
It was done.
Our replication study was based upon two fundamental assumptions. First, the methodological procedures we used in both the original and the replication studies are the same. Second, the replication study was carried out at a different time after the original study has been completed.
Besides, we explained the replication’s taxonomy proposed by Tsang & Kwan (1999), as well as other replication’s taxonomies proposed by other authors. Then, we classified our paper according to those replications. Finally, we added more references to support the methodological procedure adopted.
Please, see the Methodological Procedure section of the revised paper, as well as the References section of same.
Thanks.
Overall, the paper has a great potential which could be better shown once the abovementioned hindrances will be overcome.
Thanks very much.
