COVID-19 Is Examining the EU and the Member States: The Role of Attitudes and Sociodemographic Factors on Citizens’ Support towards National Policies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The main arguments made throughout the article lacks theoretical connections. Please add a theoret6contribution section stating how your manuscript advance our knowledge.
The model needs to be grounded in theory. The expectations you lay out need to be linked to prior knowledge, theories. Please link your estimated models to established frameworks.
Tell us something about public opinion change. Why do you observe the trends in the survey? This goes back to theory. Someone needs to read your paper and link it to public opinion models
I missed clear policy implications. What do your results tell diplomats? Also, what do they tell other important actors?
Great article.
Author Response
See the detailed response in the file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting piece of research, worth being advanced to being published, but the main value added from this is related to methodology and empirics, so some amendments and upgrade would be needed, as:
l. 30 – 51: Here, it is recommended that additional information, in more structured matter, is added on the measures delivered during the lockdown, where some general common points within EU countries particular measures is formulated. Learning points from the pandemic should be accordingly put into the context.
Literature review part should be extended, first, in the dimension covering the topic more generally, and second, in the dimension that adds to the support for methodological approach selected in the study.
l. 147 – 167: since this is empirical paper, much more substance should be given on the explanation of the modelling, i.e. how specifical dummies were formulated in the specific manner. Potential problems arising from the specific formulation and interdependency among different variables should also be addressed, as the answers obtained for some variables are heavily influenced with the status and answers given at other variables. In addition, as somehow indicated latter on, there seems to something omitted, regional/local policymaking, which was very important in some countries within sample.
l. 185 – 210: this text is more fit to be within the methodology part, rather than at the results part of the paper.
Results part – what is generally missing in this part is the address of the characteristics of the model in general. As the interpretations of explanatory variables are addressed well, this does not correspond to the model in general. There is a suggestion that some insight is given also on the robustness issues, elimination of specific non-relevant/non-significant explanatory variables, effects of these interventions on the modelling results etc. This would be fit also to be discussed in some more detail also within the discussion part.
The discussion part should be structured and connected a little bit more. As the paper is heavily empirical, I would assume that the discussion would follow mainly these patterns, and similar approaches would be put into the context more from this empirical perspective.
Author Response
Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript needs to be edited and written in past tense. The abstract is written poorly. I also don't like when you refer to the government, as a major entity. There are usually branches within the government that respond to specific things and should be targeted. I always highlight to my students not to mention how the "government" should do this and that because it is too broad and nonspecific.
Author Response
This manuscript needs to be edited and written in past tense. The abstract is written poorly. I also don't like when you refer to the government, as a major entity. There are usually branches within the government that respond to specific things and should be targeted. I always highlight to my students not to mention how the "government" should do this and that because it is too broad and nonspecific.
We have rewritten the literature review and other parts of the text in past tense. We have also rewritten the abstract and used the different governmental branches in the text for being more specific.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I continue to see some grammar errors and present tense writing throughout manuscript. Besides these small things, the paper is interesting and well-done.
