Evaluating Sustainable Online Education: A Cross-Disciplinary Analysis of IT Device Utilization among Slovakian and Hungarian University Students

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

I found this an interesting and engaging article and one that adds a useful perspective to current work on student experience and engagement with online learning environments (in the broadest sense, not strictly VLEs etc). It is very relevant in the context of the post Covid-Pandemic (be careful - it was a pandemic, not an epidemic as you sometimes write!)

Word epidemic has been corrected to the pandemic.

It was also interesting to get a perspective from regions of Hungary and Slovakia. It was good to see contextualisation (so often, regional characteristics are overlooked in work on higher education), so we get a feeling of having visited the regions in a way that often we don't. 

It did not need to be corrected.

I felt there was a slightly uncomfortable jump from your literature review to the method - what you did.  I missed a sentence or two about 'why' you did a survey and in these two regions.  You jump from talking about work done in the Philippines to doing your survey. I think more needs to be said at this point about why you have chosen to do your comparative case study in Hungary and Slovakia, let alone in Kosice and Mosonmagyarovar.  I wonder if it would help if you made more of a link with, say, the Hungarian literature you engage with earlier?

Agreed with the comment and have been added the link at the end of the literature review.

In the results section, you presented your results in sections that focus on Kosice and Mosonmagyarovar. rather than by theme.  This is not incorrect, but for an international reader, this has less meaning or relevance than if you had presented your results more firmly in a thematic structure. For this reader, I found it harder to see the broad themes you were identifying than if you had, for example, given thematic headings and sub-headings. Nice at is to 'visit' Kosice and Moson, I rather need to know what the broader themes are.

The general findings obtained by simpler statistical methods have been highlighted by theme, with only a minor grouping by area within each theme. Cramer's V has indeed been presented by area, but this is because the indicator itself is calculated by area, and to aggregate it would make this section opaque. Therefore, this part would be discouraged unless necessary.

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

a) Your writing style is not consistent. Sometimes paragraphs are placed in contexts that are not directly related to the topic of the article.

We would be grateful if you could indicate the paragraphs which are not directly related to the topic of the article.

b) It is difficult to compare education in completely different regions. The conditions for online education are completely different in Asia, Africa and Europe, so I recommend using more European research on the topic (e.g. Šorgo, …).

There was not enough European research available on this topic (and this is emphasised in the current revision), so countries outside Europe were considered.

c) The introduction is confusing and some results are duplicated. The introduction should be shorter and written briefly, with the references that are really and directly related to your topic.

The Introduction section has been rewritten in its entirety on the basis of the recommendation.

d) The topic of the article is indirectly related to sustainability and the main point of the article is not sustainability.

The main topic is not directly about sustainability, but we have approached the topic from a sustainability perspective, based on the editors' preliminary indications.

e) The results from Figure 1 would be better presented in the form of a table. Now you are wasting too much space and the results are not transparent enough.

The other reviewer suggested that there should be more graphics. We also believe that the results are more transparent to the reader with a graph than with a table.

f) Have you pretested the questionnaire? Or did someone check the properties of the questions? The question: Have you ever felt guilty about spending a lot of time with IT devices?

This question is indeed imprecise, so the assessment of the answers to this question has been removed from both the illustration and the main text.

g) The simple statistical methods (average, standard deviation, Cramer's V) are not sufficient for a high-quality article.

This article is primarily non-methodological in approach, so the methods used were considered sufficient to display the results.

h) What are the research questions or hypotheses?

The research questions have been added, following the literature review.

Reviewer’s recommendations

Authors’ response

1. The recording of references is not consistent. For example: p. 2, l. 78: According to studies by Dag and Gecer (2009) …

That must be so: According to studies by Dag and Gecer [2] – or whatever the next reference number is

Corrected in the paper.

2. p. 3, l. 145 – 146: Based on the data 145 analysis by MANOVA Statistical Programme

this part of the sentence is superfluous. This is not part of your research. If someone wants to know what statistics were used, they should read the original article you refer to. MANOVA is not a statistical programme, it is just the equations for the statistical results of multiple analyses of variance.

This text has been corrected.

3. p. 4, l. 159: During online education

Suggestion: Online education during the COVID-19 pandemic ….... This definition makes it clearer which period you mean..

This text has been corrected.

4. p. 4, l. 178: … transport is the first thing to highlight: cars are responsible for about 20% of greenhouse …

The reference is missing.

Following the comment 5, this paragraph has been corrected, so this proposal is no longer relevant.

5. p. 4, l. 177 – 182, The whole paragraph is true, but that's not the point of the article. If you want to use sustainability at this point and only at this point because of the journal title, then this journal is not the right choice for publishing this article.

This is, of course, not the point of this article, but in examining online education (as well as other online activities), sustainability issues need to be addressed. The paragraph has been corrected accordingly.

6. 6p. 5 l. 242 –246: The whole paragraph is correct, but that is not the point of the article, and the coffee makers have nothing to do with the quality of education. If you want to emphasise the benefits from an energy and sustainability point of view, then do so. That way the article is unclear.

The paragraph has been rewritten according to the recommendation.

7. p. 5. and 6., l. 258 – 266: In Nigeria, for example….

That's true, but it's not the point of your article, so delete it.

This section has been deleted.

8. P. 6, l.: 298 – 303: The whole paragraph. The same commentary that is commentary nos. 5 and 6.

The paragraph has been rewritten according to the recommendation.

9. p. 7, l. 349 - 363: The equations are not relevant to this part of the article. This is nothing new, so if someone want to get to know the parts of the equations in more detail, he should do so himself.

As it is not a methodological article, this is not really the point of the article (that's why we put it in the method rather than the results), but the authors and other reviewers think it fits in the article and the reader does not have to search for it.

10. p. 7: Methods

There is no information on when the research was carried out.

Which statistical package was used for the statistical analyses.

The year of the survey and the statistical program used have been added in the Materials and methods section.

Reviewer’s recommendations

Authors’ responses

1.      Broader Sampling and Diverse Demographics: Expand the research to include a more diverse sample population, possibly from different countries or regions, to enhance the generalizability of the findings.

We absolutely agree with this proposal, but the timeframe given by the journal for corrections (10+2 days) is too short to re-do the survey on this basis. It should definitely be considered in the future and is included at the end of the study for future research.

2.      Longitudinal Study Design: Consider a longitudinal study design to track changes in students' IT usage patterns and online education effectiveness over time, which can provide more in-depth insights.

We absolutely agree with this proposal, but the timeframe given by the journal for corrections (10+2 days) is too short to re-do the survey on this basis. It should definitely be considered in the future and is included at the end of the study for future research.

3.      Comparative Analysis with Traditional Learning: Add a comparative analysis between online and traditional face-to-face learning modes to contextualize the effectiveness of online education more robustly.

The different aspects of online learning are mentioned throughout the paper, but further comparisons based on the recommendation have been added in the conclusion section. Highlighting the comparison would be interesting, but would require a completely different perspective, which would require a complete rewrite of the manuscript.

4.      Discussion on Limitations and Future Research: Expand the discussion on the limitations of the current study and propose specific areas or questions for future research.

The discussion has been expanded with the recommended content.

5.      Enhanced Literature Review: Update the literature review to include the most recent studies and theoretical frameworks relevant to online education and IT usage.

The literature review has been updated.

6.      Graphical Data Representation: Use more graphical representations like charts and infographics to make the data more accessible and understandable to a broader audience. The figures’quality must be improves.

The other reviewers think that there are too many figures, so we find the amount of them satisfactory.

Reviewer’s remark

Authors’ response

The palagiarism level is to high (~11%) 

the plagiarism checking software used by the reviewer detected significant plagiarism in the results section and in the references section. The latter is obvious, but there is nothing we can do about it, as it contains the data of the studies cited. The detection of the results section as plagiarised text is incomprehensible, as the paper is entirely our own work and has not been published anywhere else. Text identities detected in the bibliography section have been corrected.

Reviewer’s comments on the quality of english language

Authors’ response

Minor editing of English language required

Minor language issues have been corrected.

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

1.  In the abstract, the authors should consider incorporating the main results obtained in quantitative terms. In this way, it captures the reader's attention. Also, this could be a little shorter. With all the changes proposed in this revision, this is likely to change.

Quantitative data have been added in the abstract.

2. The introduction must be improved in two aspects. First, it must clearly indicate why it is important to analyze Slovakia and Hungary, beyond saying that the evidence is scarce or limited. Also, the authors must detail more precisely the objetive, contributions, and scope of their work. Also, this section only has one reference. In order to be suitable this study for publication, this section must be improved completely. It is not possible to publish in this form, it requires greater methodological and thematic effort.

The two parts have been explained at the end of the Introduction section.

3. Based on scope and objective, I suggest changing the title.

It is acceptable to change the title, but in its current content it is felt to cover scope and objective. Suggestions for the title from the Reviewer are welcome.

4. Online education has different modalities. I suggest supporting very well from theoretical and practical perspectives. For example, synchronous and asynchronous. Likewise, clearly indicate the limitations of the research and the modality in which the students were involved.

The different modalities have been written into the theoretical background and the methodology. The research limitations have been added at the end of the conclusion.

5. I suggest the authors revise carefully the Instructions for Authors section. For example, references and section numeration must be improved. There is a combination between APA and IEEE. Also, all cites must be referenced.

Corrected in the paper.

6. Please include the questionnaire survey as an annex.

Questionnaire survey has been added in the annex.

7. How many students were surveyed?

The number of students surveyed has been added in the method chapter

8. The results have to be compared with previous or similar studies.

The results of the present study have been compared with previous studies in the Conclusion section.

9. How was the quality impact on education?

This aspect is in the Conclusion section.

10. Further studies are not included.

This is replaced in the Conclusion section.

Reviewer’s comments

Authors’ responses

The title does not respond to the possible research objective " experiences related to online education were examined in the fields of Informatics, Agriculture and Pharmacy education at two higher education institutions in Slovakia and one in Hungary". In fact, the term "effectiveness" is included and this is included in the text only 2 times.

The title has been corrected. Please check that it is correct now.

The abstract could be improved. It does not include the method and, for example, it states that "they are conscious users of IT tools without being addicted" but the manuscript does not indicate that a questionnaire to measure addiction is applied.

The method is described in the abstract. A question on dependency was included in the questionnaire (the questionnaire is included as an appendix in the revised version of the paper), and the findings on this issue are described in both the results and the conclusion.

The keywords are the right ones.

There is no need for correction.

It presents a consistent and well-founded theoretical framework throughout the development of the manuscript.

We have made minor corrections based on comments from other reviewers, but the meaning has not changed.

The manuscript addresses a topic of great scientific, social and educational relevance. Therefore, it is relevant to the field, clearly presented and well structured. However, it is not scientifically sound as the research objective, research questions and/or hypotheses, research design and research method are not stated.

The research objective and questions have been added.

Tables and Figures are appropriate and necessary to understand the information. All are indicated, cited and numbered correctly in the text. They are generally easy to interpret and understand. Data are interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript and include details on statistical analysis. However, in table 1 I suggest indicating the time unit in which the data are reported.

The data reported time are indicated now in the title of the table.

Include information on the distribution of the 45 questions between the 3 blocks of the questionnaire.

This information has been added in the Materials and Methods section.

Describe the "interview" instrument.

The word interview in the paper is a vocabulary error, there was no interview during the study. The incorrect word interview has been replaced by survey.

Annex or include citations that allow access to the instruments.

Questionnaire survey has been added in the annex.

Indicate in the article the validity and reliability of the instruments used.

The validity and reliability of the questionnaire have been added in the Material and methods section.

Indicate the research design and method.

This has been corrected.

Indicate the population, the sample selection process and the characterisation of the sample.

It has been corrected in the Materials and methods section.

Include the results of the interviews and/or explain the duly justified reason for not including them in this article.

The word interview in the paper is a vocabulary error, there was no interview during the study. The incorrect word interview has been replaced by survey.

Include the results of the open-ended questions in the questionnaire and/or explain the duly justified reason for not including them in this article.

The following text has been replaced at the beginning of the Results section:

The open-ended questions did not receive a sufficient number of meaningful responses, so this chapter does not include results for these.

Indicate which items of the questionnaire respond to each section of the results.

It has been added to each topic in the Results section.

Make it clear that the results should respond to the objectives, hypotheses or research questions, not to the main blocks or themes of the instrument.

It has been added at the beginning of the Results section.

From my point of view, the absence of validity and reliability would invalidate the results, so this aspect should be remedied in the "materials and method" section.

The validity and reliability of the questionnaire have been added in the Material and methods section.

Include the data corresponding to all the methods of analysis indicated in the "Statistical analysis" section.

It has been corrected.

Although the conclusions drawn are supported by the results and citations listed, the authors do not include relevant information that would allow me to assess whether they are consistent and conclusive.

The Conclusion section has been corrected.

Check the DOI and adapt it to the journal's standards. Some appear as links (blue colour) and others as text (black colour).

DOIs has been corrected.

Revise citations 17, 26, 27, 31, 35, and others. The year does not appear in bold.

The citations have been revised, the years were highlighted in bold.

Reference 20 and 47 are the same. Therefore, reference 20 is duplicated. This would involve revising the renumbering of citations and references from number 47 onwards.

Citations have been renumbered.

There are no self-quotations.

The authors have no previous publications closely related to this topic, so there are no self-quotations.

There are some errors in the quotations.

These errors have been corrected, with the exception of Susila (2020) and Dindar (2022), because there are not two, but three authors.

The sections "Authors' contributions", "Funding", " Informed Consent Statement", "Data availability statement", "Acknowledgements" and "Conflicts of interest" have not been included.

These sections have been added.