This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIRx Med, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://med.jmirx.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
This paper [
1. The authors should ensure that their points are supported by citations, appropriate to a scientific manuscript.
2. The authors should address several main barriers to the recommendations made—
3. Not all authors use preprints, and peer review has not been effective in addressing some rushed science, particularly in the last few months. How should these concerns be addressed?
The authors have been responsive to the reviewers’ comments and have improved the piece. I have a few remaining concerns, as noted below.
1. The paper could still benefit from references to support the authors’ points. For example, the first paragraph does not include a single reference. As another example, point 7—what evidence do the authors have that, “the more relevant the data of the registry and the larger the potential research community, the bigger the bottleneck is likely to be”?
2. Epidemiological data are, in fact, telling us who is more likely to be infected—by race, ethnicity, age, etc. The authors should clarify the unique contribution of clinical data.
3. It is not clear what the authors mean by “In large health systems that cover most of the population cases can be captured rather quickly if the learning system is implemented and coordinated across sites (hence the need for regulating and standardising the methods).”
4. The authors do not clearly define the health learning system in contrast to current practices.
None declared.