Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to read this manuscript

Text deals with ambitious task to analysis of pandemic response in Japan. The strength of this paper is that it presents some useful analysis that might not otherwise be available for international readers. Totally the present article is well-established and the subject is interesting, but some revision should be considered.

Introduction

In the introduction there is still lacks of the international characteristics. A strong background of the known knowledge is needed. Author only described the problem but did not provide the state of preparation on the world background

 

Methods:

A flowchart should be added to the article to show the research methodology.

 

Results:

Much more explanations and interpretations must be added for the results, which are not enough.

It is suggested to compare the results of the present research with some similar studies which is done before.

 

Conclusions:

Although mostly pertinent to the study, I have some observations:

Firstly, conclusion is excessively short (needs to be more synthetic and self-explicative)

Secondly, in some points the stated exceeds the scope of the data and, given the lack of support in some findings along the discussion, I believe it should be revised and re-elaborated.

Limitations:

References:

I highly recommend updating some references.

Please see and consider to include this references:

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208561

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115888

https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084517

https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8040442

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to say that I appreciate the very much fruitful cooperation with the authors of the paper under scrutiny. I do feel not bad about the situation when the most critical changes were taken into consideration, and others were discussed correctly.

I am going to propose editing the paper in this form.

Wishing the authors all the best, I would like at the end to stress again that in most cases, "the simple is beautiful,", especially with logical explanations.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer 1

 

1. I would like to say that I appreciate the very much fruitful cooperation with the authors of the paper under scrutiny. I do feel not bad about the situation when the most critical changes were taken into consideration, and others were discussed correctly. I am going to propose editing the paper in this form. Wishing the authors all the best, I would like at the end to stress again that in most cases, "the simple is beautiful,", especially with logical explanations.

 

Response: We appreciate your careful review and helpful suggestions for improving our manuscript. We totally agree with the above advice and will keep it in mind for future papers. Again, thank you very much.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for including most of my comments. 

However I think results still needs some improvements.

Also the title is not readable. My suggestion;

The Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Health Emergency and Disaster in Japan.

 

With "preliminary report" it's necessary to change structure of article 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Reviewer 2

 

1. Thanks for including most of my comments. However I think results still needs some improvements. Also the title is not readable. My suggestion; The Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Health Emergency and Disaster in Japan. With "preliminary report" it's necessary to change structure of article.

 

Response: We appreciate your careful review and helpful suggestions. In accord with your recommendation, we revised the title as follows:

“The Impact of COVID-19 Outbreak on Health Emergency and Disaster in Japan”

 

We agree with the reviewer’s comment about the structural changes, but please accept that we have structured each section of the article according to the Authors instruction in Sustainability. Again, thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx