The Effects of COVID-19 on Wellbeing: Evidence from Israel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript focuses on a current theme. The text has some grammatical and formatting errors.
It is necessary to 
1) standardise the COVID-19 wording (starting with the title)
2) acronyms should be spelled out in full when they are included in the text for the first time.
3) enlarge the text relating to Figure 1. 
4) add research limitations  in the final part of the text. 
In the introductory part, I recommend specifying the concept of wellbeing.

5) include more description related to the implementation and administration of the questionnaire 

the concept of well-being is also related to a social as well as a psychophysical aspect. Some manuscripts in the literature have dealt with the increasing  fear and stress as well as anxiety in moving around in enclosed places or public transport.
In addition, the relationships between colleagues have been reduced in the home of teleworking. It is therefore advisable to include these concepts and read the following research papers:

1)Jefferson, L., Golder, S., Heathcote, C., Avila, A. C., Dale, V., Essex, H., ... & Bloor, K. (2022). General practitioner wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. A systematic review. British Journal of General Practice.

2) Campisi, T., Basbas, S., Tanbay, N. A., & Georgiadis, G. (2022). Some considerations on the key factors determining the reduction of public transport demand in Sicily during COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Transport Development and Integration, 6(1), 81-94.

3)Campisi, T., Tesoriere, G., Trouva, M., Papas, T., & Basbas, S. (2022). Impact of Teleworking on Travel Behaviour During the COVID-19 Era: The Case Of Sicily, Italy. Transportation Research Procedia, 60, 251-258.

4)O’Brien, N., Flott, K., Bray, O., Shaw, A., & Durkin, M. (2022). Implementation of initiatives designed to improve healthcare worker health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: comparative case studies from 13 healthcare provider organisations globally. Globalization and Health, 18(1), 1-13.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper presents an extensive study on the indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and related issues in the first 8 months on life satisfaction using the Israeli example. A huge number of respondents (more then 1200) participated in the survey. Many important parameters have been taken into account, which introduces a novelty in the approach to analysis. Adequate mathematical methods were used. Certainly, some places could be improved to make the work clearer to the readers. It is also possible to supplement the work. Specific comments are as follows:

1. The analysis, based on the respondents` age and sex, and also the religion they belong to, and household income levels, and their answers is lacking. It would be logical to assess the socio-demographic issues first in the descriptive statistics part.
2. Were the questions beginning with “To what extent…” all measured with the scale of 1-11? Is it stated in the text?
3. The question about a spouse is indicated in Table 1 but was never mentioned again further in the analysis. Why?
4. It could be convenient not to mention the first author by a name in the text since the idea-maker of the here, in a way, confronted studies is the same person.
5. Tables 2-5 and 7-8 (the second Table 2, since there are two tables entitled Table 2. Besides, Table 11 does not exist at the moment, and it was mentioned in the introductory text) are improper in a way since every row presents a sum shown as 100 %. For the possibility of comparison of the results, the number of total respondents could present 100 %, and the rest of the results recalculated in such a manner. Also, it may be convenient to show those results in the form of figures, if the authors find them suitable. The discussion then should be changed according to the results.
6. Every abbreviation used must be defined at the first time of mention, like OECD.
7. The Discussion and Conclusion sections should be presented separately.
8. Some typos found are:

- Not all the fonts are the same, change it in the whole text and tables.

- Line 213, there is a spot to delete.

- The words in tables nor the list of authors should not be separated using a dash. Just write the whole words at once.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has some grammatical errors. After their correction the paper will be elegible for publication 

Author Response

Please find attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the paper improved and ready for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for the previous comments. There were no additional comments in this round.