Lessons of the Pandemic for Family and School—The Challenges and Prospects of Network Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

• The introduction section could be improved a little more. In addition, I could not find the purpose of the study and the research questions that will guide the study in the introduction.
  
  • The Material Method part is not understandable. As follows;
  • It was not specified which research design was used in the study. It is expected that the method used and the activities applied will be properly described.
  • It is not clear how the schools in which the research was conducted were selected
  • Detailed information of the participants is not included.
  • Detailed information about the applied questionnaires was not provided.
• There are some shortcomings in the presentation of the results:
  
  • A logical order was not followed in the presentation of the results.
  • Not supported by the literature in the interpretation of the results obtained.
• Problems with bibliography:
  
  • Not in alphabetical order.
  • References 5, 6, 22, 26, and 32 are the works of the authors. I don't know if this poses an ethical problem or not. I leave this part to the discretion of the editor.
• Finally, as a reflection of the above deficiencies, there are also deficiencies in the information about the purpose and method in the summary section.

Author Response

I have revised the paper based your comments, you can see the green colors in document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The background of the research is quite clear and well presented. However, it would be better if the initial data were presented and the reasons why the research was conducted or why the researcher was interested in the topic.

The reviewed literature should be supplemented with studies on how the distance learning process can be carried out in a systematic and effective way for both students and parents.

The method is quite clear but it is necessary to add a little general description of the characteristics of the respondents

The discussion and discussion are quite clear but it is good to be associated with supporting theory.

Conclusions should not repeat the contents of the discussion but are the final resume of the results of this study and add recommendations from researchers based on these conclusions.

Author Response

I have revised the paper based your comments, you can see the green colors in document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors:

• Keywords can be improved, youshould find short terms more descriptive like distant learning, elearning, online learning, …
• You use terms like "distance learning" and "online learning". They are not exactly de same. It would be interesting to clarify the difference between e-learning/online-learning and distance learning. This is location. With e-learning and online learning, students can be together in a classroom while going through their digital lessons and assessments. Distance learning, on the other hand, can be done from the student's home, and it can be online or other traditional resources. You should clarify this terms in the introduction.
• In the 2nd and 3rd page you describe in detail the situation in Moscow with a lot of data as “Not all students had …” this an opinion or observation, you should cite the source of the information you provide.
•  
• Citation problems: In this paragraph you mix different  styles of citation “J. Lo pez-Puig and M.E. Cardenal (2021), D. Ferguson (2020), N. Iivari, S. Sharma and L. Venta-Olkkonen (2020), Y. M. Tang (2021b), K. Srijamdee and P. Pholphirul (2020), E. Beaunoyer, S. Dupere & M. J. Guitton (2020) and others [4,7,9-12]” you should use the journal style.

One of the main problems of the article is the discussion section. It should be developed. It should focus on explaining and evaluating what you found, showing how it relates to your literature review and research questions, and making an argument in support of your overall conclusion.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for guidance and constructive comments. I am sending to you the revised version of Sustainability paper.

New revisions are marked in  BLUE, earlier revisions are marked in GREEN.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I re-examined the study and saw that the deficiencies I mentioned earlier were still not eliminated.
Although the introduction part was developed, the aim of the study and the research questions were not found.
What I said for the abstract, method, conclusion and bibliography still applies.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. 

New revisions are marked in  BLUE, earlier revisions are marked in GREEN.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Done.