Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article Post-Covid 19 study about the medicine students’ opinions regarding online learning in association with their preferences as Internet consumers addresses still another Covid-related problem, this time related to Romanian medical students and their perception of online classes. The authors collected data from a relatively large sample (551 students from four universities) and conducted a quantitative survey-based study. My general opinion of the article is rather sceptical due to the following:

-        There is no explicit information why the authors have decided to write about this topic. In the times of pandemic when the transition to online classes was a matter of emergency and necessity rather than lecturers’ choice, the issue of taking care of classes attractiveness (mentioned by the authors a few times) is that important? I would have expected more cogent arguments about the relevance of the topic.

-        Another issue related to the previous one is how different Romanian students’ opinion could differ from the opinions of students elsewhere. In other words, what is new about the results from this group of participants that deseves our attention, so that we should read the article.

-        The article seems a bit one-sided and it is always (whwenever possible) to introduce the familiarity with the opposite argument. This might refer to the introduction part.

-        Some items in the questionnaire tend to overlap; shouldn’t the number of for and against statements be equal?

-        The Discussion part presents results. I would suggest dividing this section into Results and Discussion. The conclusion part introduces further questions and makes an impression that no conclusion has been made.

-        The language should be proof-read by a native speaker – major grammar mistakes, including the abstract.

That said, I do appreciate the work that the authors have invested into conducting this project. I suggest writing the article anew. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

It is necessary to give more clarity about the sample in the abstract

It is necessary to expand the introduction with more international sources of journals indexed in Scopus or WoS

It is suggested to present findings and conclusions that show the differential value

The results section presents some unnecessary tables due to its emphasis on univariate analysis and descriptive statistics. It is ideal to focus on tables with more statistical robustness

It is necessary to delve deeper into the results in the explanation of each table reported.

The discussion must explicitly include the practical implications of the study and clarify its added value.

It is necessary to strengthen the conclusions section (it cannot have citations)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting paper on a relevant topic for today's educators. The authors present a clear argument and the data analysis is straight forward. The conclusions are not beyond the evidence provided by the data. The recognition that practical hands-on learning activities (anatomy dissection) are diminished when moved on-line is important and the authors may wish to highlight this more.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. Good abstract with the methods and relevant information

2. Introduction is a little short as there is no literature so this section needs to be detailed

3. Material have good information

4. Results and discussion is adequate

5. Conclusion has good points but need to know the future aspects 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 I approve of the corrected verion of the manuscript. 

The authors have addressed all the points to which I had reservations. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have answered all the requirements