Long-Term Effects of COVID-19, and Its Impact on Business, Employees, and CO2 Emissions, a Study Using Arc-GIS Survey 123 and Arc-GIS Mapping
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Please remove citation in abstract.
2. Add discussion on Arc- 2 GIS Survey 123 and Arc-GIS Mapping into introduction and LR
3. Figure 2 - size too small. Do you get permission to used this figure in your paper?
4. The contribution of study need to be highlight. Maybe can improve line 135-137 and relate with Arc- 2 GIS Survey 123 and Arc-GIS Mapping and math model
5. Step 3. The daily data were combined as monthly data - how you combine the data? please explain more and add no of data.
6. Can you detail out, no of data in step 2 (dataset was too large).
7. Step 4 and step 5, maybe need to rephrase and add the limitation of arcgis.
8. Mathematical model need to explain in methodology and add some LR.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
- The manuscript of “Impact of COVID-19 on CO2 Emissions: A Study Using Arc- 2 GIS Survey and Arc-GIS Mapping” have written by Vegh Gary, Sajedi Sarah and Naybor Deborah need to organize.
- Title: In my opinion this study is a mini-Review
- As you know the main question of your study is: “The key question is how the pandemic has affected people's lives.” Authors focused on "the pandemic has affected people's lives" NOT "relationship between the COVID-19 lockdown and its impact on CO2 emission reduction". Please completely explain this gap.
- What does your study (your research objective) help to people? "This research objective is to demonstrate the relationship between the COVID-19 lockdown and its impact on CO2 emission reduction. "
- Did you authors answer your question? "The assumption is that once lockdown ends, emissions will recover to previous levels, if not higher."
- How the daily data were combined to monthly data? did your authors consider the coefficient of EPA for conversion of daily to monthly?
- The quality of figures is feeble.
- The numbers of figures in tables are a lot. Authors put 27 figures and 4 tables in manuscript.
- Please see the draft of table 1 that authors send to reviewers since the title is italic “Table 1: Average Monthly miles saved per person”
- In my opinion the authors did not read the manuscript before send to journal since this work have two Table 3: “Table 3: Annual Potential tons [Imperial] of CO2 Emission Saving If Predicted Population Continues Working-From-Home model” and “Table 3: Estimated overall Annual Percent CO2 emissions Saving from in 2021, Worldwide and selected countries”
- In my opinion this work similar to such as report document and it is needed to re-organize.
- Order of figures need to justify. “Figure 27: Carbon Monitor 2019-2020 CO2 Emissions from ground transportation data by Country Predicted Analysis” after that “Figure 11: Carbon Monitor 2019-2020 CO2 Emissions from ground transportation data by Country Predicted Error Analysis”
- Conclusions: Why authors use reference in Conclusions: “the period in previous years [21].”
- The application and novelty f this work should be mentioned in conclusions, introduction, abstract sections.
- Lines 546 to 576: Since the authors have to interpret their results in the discussion section and no specific information is received in lines 546 to 576. These sentences are related to your introduction section, not the discussion. In my opinion, authors must re-organize their manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled “Impact of COVID-19 on CO2 Emissions: A Study Using Arc- 2 GIS Survey 123 and Arc-GIS Mapping” established a comprehensive study related to impact of Covid-19 on CO2 emission. There are some major problems needed to be addressed before considering for publication.
1. Line 56-74, " There have been many …… ." is needed to be rewrote to be of a better statement. Overall, the English of the paper is needed to be polished again.
2. In the Introduction, authors did not review the existing studies at home and abroad on the reduction of CO2 emission due to Covid.
3. Results and Discussion has no direct relationship with the research results presented in the article. Authors should discuss only the data found.
4. Daily CO2 emission, from lines 368 are too short to explain anything in depth.
5. Figures 8 to 15 must be revised.
6. The paper is lack of discussion about uncertainties of the established covid related issues.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Th topic is novel and timely. however, some amendments are needing;
1. In abstract, mainly indoors mentioned in the statements but what kind of CO2 emissons were targeted during the study. more reflection between aim and results in abstract
2. In intro, some information, specificalyy fig 1 and 2 may be discussed in materials and methods and results and discusion section, respectively, not in intro.
3. overall aims should be mentioned at the end of the intro not in the meiddle of the introduction, e.g. line 43..
4. the social and environmental impact of study may be examined in results and discussion as the study parameters, not in the middle of the intro and m&m sections. so please move them as results and discussion of these surveys.
5. is there any statistical approach to evaluate the results? please more accurate approach.
6. is there any mathmatical approach, participant caharacteristics, in/out criteria etc. can be mentioned in m&m section not results and discussion.
7. the figures can be more higher quality, and similar format
8. the discussion is very poor. all results should be discussed with a appropriate bibliography
9. the drawbacks of the results or modelling should be evaluated, or pros and cos of the study/modelling.
10. under these data, what kind of predictions and suggestion can be offered by the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments to the Author
1. References are generally not cited in abstracts
2. some sentences are repeated
3. The font format is inconsistent in the article.
4. The serial number of the figure in the article is incorrectly marked, the order of figure 6 is reversed from that of figure 7, and there are also errors in the serial number of the following figure. Please check it carefully.
5. Figure 15 , Figure16 and Table 1 in the article are not clearly marked.
6. All formulas in the article are not marked with sequence numbers.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Try to update the reference style.
Reviewer 4 Report
The suggetsions appropriately answered by the authors
