Teachers’ Digital Competencies Before, During, and After the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research analyses the digital skills of teachers and students before and after COVID'19. It analyses, through surveys, which skills teachers and/or students have and/or acquire.

 

The submitted manuscript exhibits several deficiencies that necessitate substantial attention prior to potential publication.

 

1. Abstract Structure: The abstract does not adhere to the standard structure of scientific publications, which requires the inclusion of distinct sections for Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. Authors are urged to rewrite the abstract strictly following these guidelines.
2. Introduction Organization: The introduction lacks clarity in presenting the article's structure and does not include explicit research questions. Furthermore, the repetition of sections (2, 3, and 4) suggests poor content organization. It is recommended to restructure the introduction, incorporating the research questions and clarifying the logical sequence of sections.
3. In the section "4. Framework of Digital Competences for Teachers in Serbia": The inclusion of tables with digital competencies in this section disrupts the text's flow. Given that these tables represent information from official documents, it is suggested to relocate them to an appendix, with a brief description of their content in the main body of the article.
4. Consistency in Table Numbering: Inconsistencies are detected in the reference to tables (e.g., mention of Table 8 when it does not exist, incorrect cross-references, lines 363 y 439). It is imperative to correct these errors and ensure coherence in the numbering and referencing of tables. Table 7 is mentioned in lines 410, 416 and 441.
5. Data Format in Tables (line 441): Errors in the format of decimal separators are observed in Table 7. Additionally, it is suggested to improve the table's presentation by adding a column that clearly identifies each competency (see file).
6. Logical Sequence of Data Presentation: An incongruity in the data presentation sequence is detected (e.g., reference to data from page 19 on page 13). Careful review is required to ensure data are presented in a logical and coherent order.
7. Table 7 Format and Content: Errors are identified in the nomenclature of headings ("Varijable"), and it is suggested to adjust the column width to improve visibility.
8. Section Numbering: Errors are detected in section numbering (e.g., line 417). A thorough review is required to ensure coherence in the numbering of all sections.
9. Structure of Discussion and Conclusions: It is recommended to separate the Discussion and Conclusions section into two distinct sections to facilitate clarity and scientific rigor. Furthermore, authors are urged to ensure that the conclusions directly address the research questions posed.
10. Article Title: The article title does not adequately reflect the manuscript's content. A review and modification of the title is suggested to make it more precise and representative.

----------------------------------------------

Recommendations:

A thorough review of the manuscript is recommended to correct the errors noted.

Authors are urged to restructure the article following the journal's guidelines.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1
Comment 1: [Abstract Structure: The abstract does not adhere to the standard structure of scientific publications, which requires the inclusion of distinct sections for Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions. Authors are urged to rewrite the abstract strictly following these guidelines.]
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added the background of the entire research, the reasons for starting the study, the methods, and the main conclusion in the abstract. Changes were made in the "Abstract" section, on page 1, lines 20 to 25, 27 to 28, and 32 to 33.]
Comment 2: [Introduction Organization: The introduction lacks clarity in presenting the article's structure and does not include explicit research questions. Furthermore, the repetition of sections (2, 3, and 4) suggests poor content organization. It is recommended to restructure the introduction, incorporating the research questions and clarifying the logical sequence of sections.]
Response 2: [We agree. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point. Due to the repetition of phrases from sections 2, 3, and 4, the text in lines 44, 45, and 46 has been rephrased. The text in lines 58 to 67 has been written in accordance with your review (page 2). Research questions have been added, and the logical flow of the chapters in the subsequent text has been clarified.]
Comment 3: [In the section "4. Framework of Digital Competences for Teachers in Serbia": The inclusion of tables with digital competencies in this section disrupts the text's flow. Given that these tables represent information from official documents, it is suggested to relocate them to an appendix, with a brief description of their content in the main body of the article.]
Response 3: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Since the tables on pages 7 to 13 took up a lot of space and did not integrate well with the text, we moved them to Appendices 1 to 6. On pages 7 to 9 in revised document (lines 292 to 308, 356 to 419), we added a shorter description of the digital competencies of teachers. The text from page 13 (lines 363 to 388) was moved to pages 16 and 17 in the "Results" section (revised document), as it pertains to the description of the survey results (lines 567 to 692).]
Comment 4 [Consistency in Table Numbering: Inconsistencies are detected in the reference to tables (e.g., mention of Table 8 when it does not exist, incorrect cross-references, lines 363 y 439). It is imperative to correct these errors and ensure coherence in the numbering and referencing of tables. Table 7 is mentioned in lines 410, 416 and 441].
Response 4: [We agree. We have, accordingly, modified to emphasize this point. The text from page 13 (lines 363 to 388) was moved to pages 16 and 17 in the "Results" section (revised document), as it pertains to the description of the survey results (lines 567 to 692). The table titles, as well as references to tables in the text, have been updated in accordance with the revised document (page 10, lines 445 and 447; page 10, lines 465 and 466; page 15, lines 564 and 566).
Comment 5 [Data Format in Tables (line 441): Errors in the format of decimal separators are observed in Table 7. Additionally, it is suggested to improve the table's presentation by adding a column that clearly identifies each competency (see file)].
Response 5: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. The decimal separators in Table 7 have been changed, and an additional column has been added to the table for improved presentation, following the instructions in the file peer-review-44104141.v1.pdf. Table 7 is now referred to as Table 3 in the revised document and appears on pages 15 and 16].
Comment 6 [Logical Sequence of Data Presentation: An incongruity in the data presentation sequence is detected (e.g., reference to data from page 19 on page 13). Careful review is required to ensure data are presented in a logical and coherent order].
Response 6: [We agree. We have, accordingly, modified to emphasize this point. The text from page 13 (lines 363 to 388) was moved to pages 16 and 17 in the "Results" section (revised document), as it pertains to the description of the survey results (lines 567 to 692).]
Comment 7 [Table 7 Format and Content: Errors are identified in the nomenclature of headings ("Varijable"), and it is suggested to adjust the column width to improve visibility].
Response 7: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Table 7 has been renamed to Table 1 due to the relocation of some large tables to the "Appendix" section. In this table, the word "Varijable" has been replaced with the appropriate term "Variables." Additionally, for better data visibility, the column widths in Table 1 have been modified and adjusted (page 10].
Comment 8 [Section Numbering: Errors are detected in section numbering (e.g., line 417). A thorough review is required to ensure coherence in the numbering of all sections].
Response 8 [We agree. We have, accordingly, modified to emphasize this point. The numbering in lines 462, 509, 544, and 562 has been modified.]
Comment 9 [Structure of Discussion and Conclusions: It is recommended to separate the Discussion and Conclusions section into two distinct sections to facilitate clarity and scientific rigor. Furthermore, authors are urged to ensure that the conclusions directly address the research questions posed.]
Response 9 [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have separated the chapters "Discussion" and "Conclusions." To facilitate comparison with similar studies outside Serbia, we introduced four new references (pages 17 and 18 lines 617, 628, 633, 636, 640, 646, and 651). In the "Conclusions" chapter, we briefly summarized the research findings, the purpose of the study, and the research questions to ensure that the readers are convinced that the conclusions address the posed research questions. To this end, we added text on pages 18 and 19 lines 653 to 702]
Comment 10 [Article Title: The article title does not adequately reflect the manuscript's content. A review and modification of the title is suggested to make it more precise and representative.]
Response 10 [We agree. The more suitable title would be: "Teachers' digital competencies before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic (page 1, lines 2 and 3).]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a highly relevant topic: the digital competences of teachers in post-COVID education.

The paper presents a theoretical approach to teachers’ digital competencies, and a survey-based approach to highlight how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted teachers’ digital skills in Serbia.

The theoretical approach with the description of the Serbian framework for teacher digital competencies occupies too large a space in the paper. This section may be reduced to only the essential, and should also mention whether the Framework of Digital Competencies for teachers in Serbia aligns with other international similar frameworks.

In the methodological part, the authors present the two phases of applying the survey as before the crisis situation, namely before the Covid-19 pandemic, June 2019, and after the crisis situation, namely June 2022: as there is no explanation of the arguments for starting this research at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was not a threat, it sounds as if the author(s) knew of the coming pandemic crisis, which cannot be true. Therefore, we suggest providing arguments and describing the context in which the research started before the COVID-19 pandemic and unknowingly of the fact that the crisis would come, the reasons behind it at that time. The instrument applied before and after the pandemic crisis is the same, which implies an experimental design. But the COVID-19 pandemic was not part of an experimental design. 

The authors do not describe in details how the research instrument, namely the survey applied to teachers was elaborated, whether it was validated by experts, or piloted. As such, the research instrument seems vague and unreliable.

The results should be presented in a more graphic form, like pie charts or diagrams with percentages, and the diagrams and tables with results included in the paper should be selected and reduced in number. Each of the diagrams and tables with results should be accompanied by a discussion, an interpretation of the results. The entire data obtained for the results may be provided in a supplementary material document annexed to this paper.  

The Discussion and conclusion section should connect the findings of this research to findings of other studies. Some statements should be accompanied by references, for example, line 459, “The situation was similar in other countries around the world.” Also, in this section, the several key steps to improve student achievement and the digital competences of teachers may be further detailed upon to include the agencies involved in implementing those changes and the support needed, also references to models from other countries that could be taken as an example, adopted and/or adapted in Serbia.

The percent match is quite high, 25%, and should be lowered.

The Reference section comprises recent titles, but it may be enhanced to include more related papers, and studies. These references should also be cited in text.

As such, the paper discusses the Serbian reality of the digital competences of teachers as identified by the authors, but there should be added why this paper is relevant to teachers and researchers from other countries. This could be made clearer by connecting the paper to more research from other countries.  

Author Response

Reviewer 2
Comment 1: [The theoretical approach with the description of the Serbian framework for teacher digital competencies occupies too large a space in the paper. This section may be reduced to only the essential, and should also mention whether the Framework of Digital Competencies for teachers in Serbia aligns with other international similar frameworks.]
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Since the tables on pages 7 to 13 took up a lot of space and did not integrate well with the text, we moved them to Appendices 1 to 6. On pages 7 to 9 in revised document (lines 292 to 308, 356 to 419), we added a shorter description of the digital competencies of teachers. The text from page 13 (lines 363 to 388) was moved to pages 16 and 17 in the "Results" section (revised document), as it pertains to the description of the survey results (lines 567 to 692).]
Comment 2: [In the methodological part, the authors present the two phases of applying the survey as before the crisis situation, namely before the Covid-19 pandemic, June 2019, and after the crisis situation, namely June 2022: as there is no explanation of the arguments for starting this research at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic was not a threat, it sounds as if the author(s) knew of the coming pandemic crisis, which cannot be true. Therefore, we suggest providing arguments and describing the context in which the research started before the COVID-19 pandemic and unknowingly of the fact that the crisis would come, the reasons behind it at that time. The instrument applied before and after the pandemic crisis is the same, which implies an experimental design. But the COVID-19 pandemic was not part of an experimental design.]
Response 2: [We agree. On page 7 (lines 300 to 308), in the chapter "Framework of Digital Competencies for Teachers in Serbia," we listed the reasons why this research began in 2019: “Before it was known that a crisis situation and pandemic would occur, the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia had planned the development of digital competencies for various reasons. Some of these reasons relate to correspondence schools for students abroad who are unable to study in Serbian, children undergoing hospital treatment who need online or hybrid teaching, and, above all, the possibility for teachers to track the development of digitalization in education. The purpose of creating the first survey used in this study (June 2019) was precisely the recommendation from the Ministry of Education to assess the level of digital skills that teachers in primary and secondary schools in Serbia possess”.]

Comment 3: [The authors do not describe in details how the research instrument, namely the survey applied to teachers was elaborated, whether it was validated by experts, or piloted. As such, the research instrument seems vague and unreliable.]
Response 3: [Thank you for pointing out the mistake. We truly did not describe the survey properly. In the chapter 2, on page 9 (lines 428 to 435), we have added the necessary details regarding the survey in all three phases.]
Comment 4 [The results should be presented in a more graphic form, like pie charts or diagrams with percentages, and the diagrams and tables with results included in the paper should be selected and reduced in number. Each of the diagrams and tables with results should be accompanied by a discussion, an interpretation of the results. The entire data obtained for the results may be provided in a supplementary material document annexed to this paper.]
Response 4: [Thank you for pointing out such an important issue. We mostly agree with your comments. However, the tables related to basic information about teachers, their computer skills, and digital competencies contain a lot of text and data, and cannot be presented graphically, especially in the form of pie charts. To make these tables better understood, we have added explanations of the results presented below each table and chart (page 10 lines 449 to 461, page 11 lines 467 to 508, page 13 lines 517 to 528, and page 14 lines 534 to 543) .
Comment 5 [The Discussion and conclusion section should connect the findings of this research to findings of other studies. Some statements should be accompanied by references, for example, line 459, “The situation was similar in other countries around the world.” Also, in this section, the several key steps to improve student achievement and the digital competences of teachers may be further detailed upon to include the agencies involved in implementing those changes and the support needed, also references to models from other countries that could be taken as an example, adopted and/or adapted in Serbia].
Response 5 [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have separated the chapters "Discussion" and "Conclusions." To facilitate comparison with similar studies outside Serbia, we introduced four new references (pages 17 and 18 lines 617, 628, 633, 636, 640, 646, and 651). In the "Conclusions" chapter, we briefly summarized the research findings, the purpose of the study, and the research questions to ensure that the readers are convinced that the conclusions address the posed research questions. To this end, we added text on pages 18 and 19 lines 653 to 702.]
Comment 6 [The percent match is quite high, 25%, and should be lowered.]
Response 6 [Following your comment regarding the similarity percentage, we conducted a detailed revision and reassessment of the manuscript. After implementing the suggested revisions and re-evaluating the text—excluding references and the abstract—the similarity index has been reduced to 9%. Within this 9%, the matches primarily consist of individual words rather than complete sentences, phrases, or paragraphs that would indicate textual overlap or potential plagiarism.
We have ensured that the manuscript adheres to ethical research and publication standards, with originality maintained throughout. Please let us know if any further clarification or adjustments are required.]
Comment 7 [The Reference section comprises recent titles, but it may be enhanced to include more related papers, and studies. These references should also be cited in text.]
Response 7 [We agree. We have, accordingly, modified to emphasize this point. In the Discussion section, on page 18, a text with newer references has been cited. (Response 5). Additionally, they have been added in the References chapter, on page 21.]
Comment 8 [As such, the paper discusses the Serbian reality of the digital competences of teachers as identified by the authors, but there should be added why this paper is relevant to teachers and researchers from other countries. This could be made clearer by connecting the paper to more research from other countries.]
Response 8 [Thank you. We agree with this comment. In the Conclusion chapter, on page 20 (lines 736 to 748), text has been added regarding the benefits this research could offer to researchers from other countries.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses a very important issue, which relevance is not restricted to the regions where the data was collected. This makes the discussion about teachers' digital skills very current.

However, I think there are some issues that need to be highlighted. The first is that basic and fundamental education (for children) and higher education (for adults and young adults) have particularities that need to be considered when discussing the use of IT in education.

The presentation of the "Framework of Digital Competencies for Teachers – Teacher for the Digital Age 310 2023" is tiring and not analytical. Tables 1 to 6 would be better in the form of an appendix. This would give more space for an analytical and critical exposition of it, and its role in the research. In Table 3, page 10, the sentence about the intermediate level of LMS use is truncated – “Tracks results and levels of (?)”

The areas of competence are presented in these tables in a summarized form do not provide any indication of which scales would be necessary for reliable and valid measurement. I fear that trying to self-evaluate them in the way they were presented in the text will generate measures of little use.

On page 13, line 363, a discussion of the results found begins. But this is done before the methodology chapter (Material and Methods), which discusses data collection.

In Chapter 3, page 14, line 408, there is a reference to Table 4 that looks to be an error in the numbering and referencing of the tables. This chapter also contains a large number of tables that should be in the form of appendices, whose analysis is only superficially descriptive – no statistical inferences are made.

Lastly, the relationship between the conclusions/recommendations made and the data collected/analysed is not clearly presented. They appear to be taken from the literature and from common sense about the need for continuous teacher development.

Author Response

Reviewer 3
Comment 1: [The paper addresses a very important issue, which relevance is not restricted to the regions where the data was collected. This makes the discussion about teachers' digital skills very current. However, I think there are some issues that need to be highlighted. The first is that basic and fundamental education (for children) and higher education (for adults and young adults) have particularities that need to be considered when discussing the use of IT in education.]
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. There are specific aspects related to the use of IT in education depending on the educational level. That is why this paper repeatedly emphasizes that the research was conducted in a secondary Architectural Technical School. Additionally, research was conducted in two primary schools, and we hope that the next study will focus on comparing teachers' digital literacy at two different educational levels.]
Comment 2: [The presentation of the "Framework of Digital Competencies for Teachers – Teacher for the Digital Age 310 2023" is tiring and not analytical. Tables 1 to 6 would be better in the form of an appendix. This would give more space for an analytical and critical exposition of it, and its role in the research. In Table 3, page 10, the sentence about the intermediate level of LMS use is truncated – “Tracks results and levels of (?)”]
Response 2: [We agree. Since the tables on pages 7 to 13 took up a lot of space and did not integrate well with the text, we moved them to Appendices 1 to 6. On pages 7 to 9 in revised document (lines 292 to 308, 356 to 419), we added a shorter description of the digital competencies of teachers. The text from page 13 (lines 363 to 388) was moved to pages 16 and 17 in the "Results" section (revised document), as it pertains to the description of the survey results (lines 567 to 692). In Table 3, which has been moved to Appendix 3, the sentence that was incomplete has been revised.]
Comment 3: [The areas of competence are presented in these tables in a summarized form do not provide any indication of which scales would be necessary for reliable and valid measurement. I fear that trying to self-evaluate them in the way they were presented in the text will generate measures of little use. On page 13, line 363, a discussion of the results found begins. But this is done before the methodology chapter (Material and Methods), which discusses data collection.]
Response 3: [Thank you for pointing this out. The recommendation of the Ministry of Education of Serbia is to conduct a self-assessment, including the levels of teachers' digital competencies. This should be done every year, and in this way, the research was initiated. For easier interpretation of the results in the table on teachers' digital competencies, part of the text from page 14, line 408 (in the unedited document) has been moved to pages 16 and 17 (lines 567 to 592).] 
Comment 4 [In Chapter 3, page 14, line 408, there is a reference to Table 4 that looks to be an error in the numbering and referencing of the tables. This chapter also contains a large number of tables that should be in the form of appendices, whose analysis is only superficially descriptive – no statistical inferences are made.]
Response 4: [We agree. We have, accordingly, modified to emphasize this point. The numbering in lines 462, 509, 544, and 562 has been modified.]
Comment 5 [Lastly, the relationship between the conclusions/recommendations made and the data collected/analysed is not clearly presented. They appear to be taken from the literature and from common sense about the need for continuous teacher development.]
Response 5 [Thank you for pointing this out. We have separated the chapters "Discussion" and "Conclusions." To facilitate comparison with similar studies outside Serbia, we introduced four new references (pages 17 and 18 lines 617, 628, 633, 636, 640, 646, and 651). The "Conclusions" chapter has been revised, expanded, and better explained, and it directly stems from the research findings. In the "Conclusions" chapter, we briefly summarized the research findings, the purpose of the study, and the research questions to ensure that the readers are convinced that the conclusions address the posed research questions. To this end, we added text on pages 18 and 19 lines 653 to 702. The recommendations focus on further professional development for teachers in order to achieve even better competencies. The recommendations are derived from our experiences as long-time teachers.]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires further revisions to address the following issues:

1. Research Question/Hypothesis Placement: The research question, or hypothesis, is introduced in section 2, line 439. However, it should be presented at the outset of the manuscript. While it is acceptable to reiterate the hypothesis later, its primary introduction should be in the initial sections. Furthermore, the term "main" preceding the hypothesis in the introduction (line 58) is superfluous and should be removed.
2. Section Numbering and Organization: The numbering of sections 2, 3, and 4 is still duplicated. I recommend revising these sections (located at lines 68, 148, and 289, respectively) to 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, making them subsections of the introduction. This will provide a more logical flow and integrate these sections smoothly within the introductory framework. The subsequent sections, currently numbered 2 (line 420), 3 (line 441), and 4 (line 593), should retain their numbering and remain as separate, main sections of the manuscript.

Recommendations:

•  The authors should relocate the primary introduction of the research question/hypothesis to the beginning of the manuscript.
•  The numbering of the initial sections should be revised to reflect their status as subsections of the introduction.

Author Response

Reviewer 1
Comment 1: [The research question, or hypothesis, is introduced in section 2, line 439. However, it should be presented at the outset of the manuscript. While it is acceptable to reiterate the hypothesis later, its primary introduction should be in the initial sections. Furthermore, the term "main" preceding the hypothesis in the introduction (line 58) is superfluous and should be removed.]
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We added the hypothesis in the Abstract section (page 1, lines 27, 28 and 29), but it is also mentioned later on.]
Comment 2: [The numbering of sections 2, 3, and 4 is still duplicated. I recommend revising these sections (located at lines 68, 148, and 289, respectively) to 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3, making them subsections of the introduction. This will provide a more logical flow and integrate these sections smoothly within the introductory framework. The subsequent sections, currently numbered 2 (line 420), 3 (line 441), and 4 (line 593), should retain their numbering and remain as separate, main sections of the manuscript]
Response 2: [We agree. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point. A more logical flow of information will be ensured by the following corrections on page 2 (line 70), page 4 (line 150), and page 6 (line 291).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is obvious that the authors have made improvements. However, there are still inadequacies in the Materials and methods section, for example, lines 427-428: "Architectural Technical School (sample size: 63 teachers, 69.23%). "

Also, a major issue concerns the questionnaire used in this research. There is no mention of how and by whom the questionnaire was elaborated, whether it was tested, revised to check for and improve its validity and reliability.

There should be clearly stated whether the questionnaire is a self-report questionnaire, as this draws certain research limitations which should be mentioned.

It is not clear how the digital competences of teachers were measured: what did the items in the questionnaire ask the respondents? Where the items open or closed, based on a Likert scale?

The authors should describe in more details the questionnaire: how it was elaborated, how it was applied, the type of scale it used, whether it was tested for validity and reliability.

The References section is quite limited, and should be enlarged to comprise more relevant titles of recent publications.  

Author Response

Reviewer 2
Comment 1: [It is obvious that the authors have made improvements. However, there are still inadequacies in the Materials and methods section, for example, lines 427-428: "Architectural Technical School (sample size: 63 teachers, 69.23%)."]
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Regarding the number of surveyed teachers in all three phases, a more detailed explanation is provided in Chapter 2, on page 9 (lines 424 to 436).]
Comment 2: [Also, a major issue concerns the questionnaire used in this research. There is no mention of how and by whom the questionnaire was elaborated, whether it was tested, revised to check for and improve its validity and reliability. There should be clearly stated whether the questionnaire is a self-report questionnaire, as this draws certain research limitations which should be mentioned. It is not clear how the digital competences of teachers were measured: what did the items in the questionnaire ask the respondents? Where the items open or closed, based on a Likert scale? The authors should describe in more details the questionnaire: how it was elaborated, how it was applied, the type of scale it used, whether it was tested for validity and reliability.]
Response 2: [We agree. We have, accordingly, revised to emphasize this point. On page 10 (lines 445 to 458), revisions have been made. Additionally, new references have been added in lines 830 to 833 on page 22.]
Comment 3: [The References section is quite limited, and should be enlarged to comprise more relevant titles of recent publications.]
Response 3: [Thank you. We agree. In the previous revision, we added new references in the Discussion section on page 19 (lines 665 to 674). In this revision, we enriched the text with references on page 19 (lines 675 to 688). These are recent publications related to our topic.]

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for the new version of the paper.

In table 3, line “Ethical use of digital content and artificial intelligence”, column “Before the crisis”, the values do not add up to 100%. I think there is a wrong number in this cell, but the authors could easily fix it.

The text shows the mean values of the variables at each of the three data collection times. The current version eliminated statistical significance (p-value) of the differences among these values. This made the data analysis poorer.

Author Response

Reviewer 3
Comment 1: [In table 3, line “Ethical use of digital content and artificial intelligence”, column “Before the crisis”, the values do not add up to 100%. I think there is a wrong number in this cell, but the authors could easily fix it.]
Response 1: [Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. It is a typographical error. The correction is located in the table on page 15.]
Comment 2: [The text shows the mean values of the variables at each of the three data collection times. The current version eliminated statistical significance (p-value) of the differences among these values. This made the data analysis poorer.]
Response 2: [We agree. To enhance the comparative analysis of the results, we added text on page 17 (lines 601, 602, 606 to 610) and on page 18 (lines 619 and 620).]