User Preference Analysis of a Sustainable Workstation Design for Online Classes: A Conjoint Analysis Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
The presented article replies to the doubts and questions that worry the teachers and administrators (especially, to manage dormitories and to supplied equipment), students and their parents (to better organize the work place for studies and to achieve higher outcome with the minimal damage for health).
The concerns are very practical, the empirical research is constructed according to a clear and detailed methodology, with correct explanations. The discussion demonstrates a significant analysis of the results and the background (Introduction) gives the sufficient theoretical basis for the scientific understanding of the reasons and logic of the studies and of the explanations given to the results.
To conclude, the article is interesting from both practical and theoretical points of view, is reflects methodological basis and results of a correct study, the findings are of high practical significance for the educational world and all involved stakeholders.
Three remarks should be mentioned to improve the form of the article (with no corrections to the content):
- the table are large, is it reasonable to move them into Appendices?
- lines 255-256 - the char-acteristics would be transposed as cha-racteristics?
- the reference 18 is not mentioned in the text.
These two minor remarks are not obligatory to implement the changes in the text, in any case, the article can be published in its present form.
Author Response
Thank you for the constructive comments, careful review, and constructive suggestions. We have applied the changes made and we do believe that the paper is now ready for publication.
Three remarks should be mentioned to improve the form of the article (with no corrections to the content):
- the table are large, is it reasonable to move them into Appendices?
Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have addressed this by moving some of the tables reasonable in the appendix section.
- lines 255-256 - the char-acteristics would be transposed as cha-racteristics?
Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have addressed this is the revised manuscript.
- the reference 18 is not mentioned in the text.
Response: Thank you for your careful review. We have mentioned it in the reference section. It was a mishap on our end.
These two minor remarks are not obligatory to implement the changes in the text, in any case, the article can be published in its present form.
Response: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. We highly appreciate the careful review you made and your detailed background for our paper.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study aims at evaluating 10 preferences of undergraduate students on the workstation design attributes during the pandemic. The authors used a cohort of 315 undergraduate students.
My comments include the following.
In the abstract section: please provide some details of the sampling: e.g., location.
In the introduction section the authors mention (line 118) that the study analysis Philippines undergraduate students most preferred workstation design attributes however the study includes a sample of 315 undergraduate students. No additional details regarding the sample and data are provided.
A literature review section is currently lacking from the paper. The authors can include a brief description on the studies conducted especially in Philippines and others developing countries.
The methodology section is well described. However, as regards the location of the study the authors have locations with only one students and others with 140 students. Please provide some additional details regarding the impact that this could have on the overall analysis.
Given the dimension of table 3 (line 298) it would be better to integrate the table as an annex and describe in brief the resulted information within the text.
The conclusion are in line with the proposed objectives.
The limitations of the study are clearly described.
Author Response
Thank you for the constructive comments, suggestions, and careful review. We have applied the changes and revisions on the manuscript. We do believe that the changes made enhanced the paper and is now ready for publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for answering to my comments.
