Write a comment

Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint?

Yes

Yes, the introduction explains the objective by linking historical ideas with a modern hypothesis about how prior influenza exposure may influence vulnerability to COVID-19. However, the objective could be stated more clearly and directly. The introduction explain the objective in a way that only people in the field can understand the work, we observe that the researcher make personal remark e.g "I". We recommend that it should be paraphrased in a simple and clear statement.

Are the methods well-suited for this research?

Highly appropriate

Absolutely, Epidemiological methods like cohort studies, serological tests, ecological analyses, and modeling can effectively investigate the interactions between influenza and SARS-CoV-2. They help understand population-level patterns and immune responses. However, we need to be mindful of data gaps and confounding variables, which means careful study design is key to ensuring we draw reliable conclusions.

Are the conclusions supported by the data?

Somewhat unsupported

The conclusion does not address any data and not include data at all.

Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data?

Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear

The preprint does not provide enough detailed or clearly presented data visualizations. The data presentation is limited and would benefit from clearer, more structured visuals to support the hypotheses and enhance understanding.

How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research?

Neither clearly nor unclearly

The authors express their ideas effectively in a theoretical context, but the data supporting their findings leaves much to be desired. Their explanations are certainly thought-provoking, though they can feel a bit speculative. Additionally, the next steps for research are mentioned only in a rather general way.

Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge?

Highly likely

Yes, the preprint presents a novel hypothesis that could advance academic knowledge, though it needs more empirical support.

Would it benefit from language editing?

Yes

Yes, in other to improve clarity, precision, and readability.

Would you recommend this preprint to others?

Yes, but it needs to be improved

The work can only be of immense valve to researchers, epidemiologists, virologists, and public health professionals who are exploring the fascinating intersection of historical epidemiology, viral co-evolution, and pandemic dynamics. It’s particularly useful for those studying the relationship between influenza and COVID-19 or seeking innovative frameworks for understanding epidemic variability. However, for a general audience or anyone looking for immediate, actionable insights, the theoretical nature of the preprint might be a bit daunting. We suggest being more simplicity to more audience.

Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience?

Yes, after minor changes

Absolutely, the article is almost there but just needs a few minor adjustments: 1. It needed to clarify the thesis, 2. the structure should be streamlined, and add some specific evidence for the 2019-2020 inquiry, 3. technical terms need to be simplified, highlight the novelty, and tidy up the formatting. With these tweaks, the article will be in great shape for editors, publishers, or a wider audience.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.