Sustainability of Remote Teaching in Serbia: Post-Pandemic Perspectives from Education Faculty Students

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview
This paper offers an important contribution to ongoing discussions about the long-term viability of remote teaching (RT) post-pandemic, with a specific focus on Serbian higher education. The research is relevant, particularly in light of the global shift towards hybrid and online learning. However, there are several areas where the clarity, depth, and overall argumentation could be strengthened to ensure a more robust and balanced discussion.

Content and Theoretical Contextualisation
The paper effectively situates emergency remote teaching (ERT) within the Serbian context, acknowledging its abrupt introduction and the challenges it presented. The inclusion of Zoom Fatigue (ZEF) as a conceptual lens is a useful addition to the discussion.

The discussion would benefit from a broader engagement with international literature on ERT and its sustainability. As it stands, the analysis leans heavily on local sources, which limits its wider applicability. Additionally, the argument that RT is unsustainable could be more critically explored—there are bodies of research suggesting that, with the right infrastructure and pedagogical approaches, online learning can be effective beyond crisis contexts- particularly in terms of issues of accessibility and inclusion.

Research Design, Questions, and Methodology
The study is methodologically sound, with a clear explanation of the sampling approach and data collection process. The use of a snowball sampling technique is appropriate given the research context.

The paper would benefit from explicitly stating its research questions and hypotheses upfront. At present, they are somewhat embedded within the discussion rather than clearly outlined from the start. Additionally, while the gender imbalance in the sample is understandable given the demographics of education faculties, it would be helpful to address this more directly and discuss any implications for the findings.

Presentation of Results
The statistical analysis is rigorous, and the inclusion of figures and tables helps illustrate key findings.

Some of the figures (particularly Figures 8-10) are not sufficiently contextualised in the text. The discussion around students’ attitudes towards RT could also be deepened—it is largely framed as negative, but there are indications in the data that some students found aspects of it beneficial. A more nuanced discussion of these perspectives would strengthen the paper. Additionally, the focus on Zoom Fatigue is useful, but it would be worth considering whether fatigue is specific to online learning itself or exacerbated by external factors (e.g., workload, stress related to the pandemic).

Argument Coherence and Discussion
The study makes a strong case that infrastructural and digital literacy challenges have contributed to students’ negative perceptions of RT. The identification of disparities in internet access and device availability is particularly valuable.

The overall argument could be more balanced. While the paper positions RT as largely unsustainable, it does not fully consider whether improvements in institutional support, digital pedagogy, or blended learning models might make it more viable in the future. A comparative perspective—drawing on examples from other countries—would help add depth to this discussion.

References and Citation Practices
The paper is well-referenced, with a strong base of sources supporting the discussion.
A more concerted effort to engage with recent international scholarship would help situate the findings in a broader context. Some sources feel somewhat redundant—tightening the reference list to focus on the most relevant literature would improve readability.

Recommendations for Revision
Based on my assessment, I would recommend Reconsider after Major Revisions

The key areas to address are:
1.    Clarify Research Questions and Hypotheses – These should be explicitly outlined in the introduction.
2.    Expand the Literature Review – Engage more directly with international research on RT sustainability.
3.    Deepen the Discussion of Findings – Provide a more nuanced interpretation of student attitudes, rather than focusing solely on dissatisfaction.
4.    Strengthen Methodological Justifications – Offer more detail on the sample size and gender balance considerations.
5.    Improve Data Presentation – Ensure figures and tables are clearly labelled and contextualised.
6.    Consider Future Implications – Rather than concluding RT is unsustainable, explore how it might be improved in the Serbian context.

Overall, this is a valuable study that raises important questions, but it could be further refined to offer a more balanced and globally relevant contribution to the field.

1.    Note. 
The title is quite long and could be streamlined for clarity and impact. Long titles can sometimes be unwieldy, making it harder for readers to grasp the focus of the paper quickly. A more concise title can improve readability and make the research more accessible while retaining key details. Currently the title: 
•    Overly detailed: It includes multiple aspects that could be better summarised.
•    Repetitive phrasing: "Sustainability" appears twice, which could be redundant.
•    Clunky structure: The phrase "about Problems of its Implementations and (Un)Sustainability in Non-Crisis Times" is cumbersome.
A clearer, more streamlined title could be:
1.    Sustainability of Remote Teaching in Serbia: Post-Pandemic Perspectives from Female Education Students
2.    Female University Students’ Attitudes on Remote Teaching in Serbia: Challenges and Post-Pandemic Sustainability
3.    Remote Teaching in Serbia: Perceived Challenges and Post-Pandemic Sustainability
4.    Evaluating the Sustainability of Remote Teaching in Serbia: Perspectives from Female Education Students.
These alternatives retain the essential elements while improving clarity and impact. 

2.    Note. 
While I acknowledge that the use of the impersonal passive voice or objective tone, such as ‘The researchers…’ is common in academic writing and is intended to focus on the research rather than the researchers, it is often assumed that this style makes the writing appear more formal and objective. Its purpose is typically to maintain neutrality and emphasise the work itself, rather than the individuals conducting it.

However, I question this practice, as it obscures the role of the researcher/s in shaping the study, raising ethical concerns related to transparency and accountability. By removing the researcher’s presence, this approach may imply that the research is entirely objective or detached from human influence. Yet, all research is inherently guided by the choices, interpretations, and biases of its authors. This approach could mislead readers into believing the findings are purely factual, ignoring the subjective decision-making involved in selecting methods, interpreting data, and framing conclusions.

I argue that it is ethically important to acknowledge the researcher’s role in the research process to promote integrity, encourage reflexivity, and ensure that the study’s limitations and potential biases are transparent to the reader. Consistently, writing in the first person, as demonstrated on page 28, 32, can foster accountability, ownership, and clarity, making it evident who is responsible for the research decisions and outcomes, and how the authors are positioned with-in their work.

Author Response

This paper offers an important contribution to ongoing discussions about the long-term viability of remote teaching (RT) post-pandemic, with a specific focus on Serbian higher education. The research is relevant, particularly in light of the global shift towards hybrid and online learning. However, there are several areas where the clarity, depth, and overall argumentation could be strengthened to ensure a more robust and balanced discussion.

Content and Theoretical Contextualisation

The paper effectively situates emergency remote teaching (ERT) within the Serbian context, acknowledging its abrupt introduction and the challenges it presented. The inclusion of Zoom Fatigue (ZEF) as a conceptual lens is a useful addition to the discussion.

The discussion would benefit from a broader engagement with international literature on ERT and its sustainability. As it stands, the analysis leans heavily on local sources, which limits its wider applicability. Additionally, the argument that RT is unsustainable could be more critically explored—there are bodies of research suggesting that, with the right infrastructure and pedagogical approaches, online learning can be effective beyond crisis contexts- particularly in terms of issues of accessibility and inclusion.

Dear reviewers, we would first like to thank you for your great support and reasonable suggestions, as well as justified criticism and pointing to potential weak points of the manuscript and the oversights due to our preoccupation with the goal of exploring technical and technological weaknesses of ERT and their impact on RT sustainability, while not paying enough attention to some cultural, psychological and social factors which are of extreme importance for understanding the topic and interpreting the results.

The text includes a large number of foreign references in order to ensure comparison with the experiences of the students from other countries. As for your impression that we insist on RT being unsustainable, it is possible that we did not emphasize and explain it clearly enough, so we have improved it this time. Namely, our position, also corroborated by the data, is that ERT significantly affected our students’ perception of RT, since it was their first contact with remote teaching and rather traumatic at that, because it coincided with their experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, which threatened their lives and the lives of their families, which brought the experience of lockdown lasting about three months, the lack of the freedom of movement, and the introduced “physical distance” which changed their usual, ordinary course of life; in addition, the ERT experience which was supposed to be a temporary solution lasted for three years during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was officially closed only several days ago in the territory of the Republic of Serbia (Order declaring the end of the epidemic of the infectious disease COVID-19, https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/naredba-proglasenje-epidemije-zarazne-bolesti-covid-19.html). All this was compounded by the concern regarding the family economic situation, paying the studying fees, as well as other studying costs, the imperative not to lose the student status, and to acquire professional knowledge, pass examinations and finally complete university studies in order to find a job. The academic pressure was particularly pronounced in the beginning, since the technical problem of implementing and following classes was a problem both to students and professors, as well as in the overall educational system, which tried to maintain the continuity of classes in the best possible way available at the moment. That is the main purpose of ERT which, in addition, is not a matter of free choice, unlike RT. Moreover, our position is that future teaching and even research experiences will be directed more to the use of AI in education than to the systematization of knowledge from ERT, since creating a sustainable ERT system for all three levels of education requires extremely large financial investments in infrastructure and maintenance, taking into account heterogeneity of courses and educational profiles. However, we have tried to accept this objection in our paper and we hope that we have succeeded in it to a certain extent.

Research Design, Questions, and Methodology

The study is methodologically sound, with a clear explanation of the sampling approach and data collection process. The use of a snowball sampling technique is appropriate given the research context.

The paper would benefit from explicitly stating its research questions and hypotheses upfront. At present, they are somewhat embedded within the discussion rather than clearly outlined from the start. Additionally, while the gender imbalance in the sample is understandable given the demographics of education faculties, it would be helpful to address this more directly and discuss any implications for the findings.

Research questions and hypotheses have been added, as you will see, and accordingly, the complete idea of the Results chapter has been rearranged. As for the dilemmas regarding gender imbalance, we apologize for not stating clearly enough that 10 male students were exempted from the research because the difference in the number was too large for using any statistical technique of data processing on the basis of which we would obtain reliable results. However, your objection was of invaluable importance for improving our paper since we have added further explanations about increasing job and family demands during the COVID-19 pandemic in the context of gender roles, which placed women into a substantially less favourable situation in relation to keeping balance between family and work life, when they were more than ever expected to be 100% successful in all fields, to preserve their own health and to permanently take care of others. From the aspect of our sample, consisting mainly of female students, as well as due to the fact explained in the paper – that the teacher/educator occupation in Serbia is perceived as a female occupation (which means that the dominant majority of the teaching staff at these faculties is female), it was extremely important to include the gender aspect. That is why this, in addition to the title change, was your most significant suggestion to us.

Presentation of Results

The statistical analysis is rigorous, and the inclusion of figures and tables helps illustrate key findings.

Some of the figures (particularly Figures 8-10) are not sufficiently contextualised in the text. The discussion around students’ attitudes towards RT could also be deepened—it is largely framed as negative, but there are indications in the data that some students found aspects of it beneficial. A more nuanced discussion of these perspectives would strengthen the paper. Additionally, the focus on Zoom Fatigue is useful, but it would be worth considering whether fatigue is specific to online learning itself or exacerbated by external factors (e.g., workload, stress related to the pandemic).

Thank you for this suggestion – we have tried to fulfill your requests by redefining the chapters Results and Discussion. We hope you will be pleased with the changes.

Argument Coherence and Discussion

The study makes a strong case that infrastructural and digital literacy challenges have contributed to students’ negative perceptions of RT. The identification of disparities in internet access and device availability is particularly valuable.

The overall argument could be more balanced. While the paper positions RT as largely unsustainable, it does not fully consider whether improvements in institutional support, digital pedagogy, or blended learning models might make it more viable in the future. A comparative perspective—drawing on examples from other countries—would help add depth to this discussion.

Thank you for this suggestion – we have tried to point to these possibilities in the chapters Discussion and Conclusions.

References and Citation Practices

The paper is well-referenced, with a strong base of sources supporting the discussion.
A more concerted effort to engage with recent international scholarship would help situate the findings in a broader context. Some sources feel somewhat redundant—tightening the reference list to focus on the most relevant literature would improve readability.

Sorry for not fully meeting your request. We believe that leaving out the existing references would disturb the text cohesion because each of them has its place and role. On the other hand, although we have been limited by deadlines, we have tried to find and read further international literature related to these topics. The literature we have found most relevant is included in the paper, whereas we indicate in the title itself that the paper deals with RT sustainability in Serbia.

Recommendations for Revision

Based on my assessment, I would recommend Reconsider after Major Revisions

The key areas to address are:

1. 
      Clarify Research Questions and Hypotheses – These should be explicitly outlined in the introduction. – Corrected.
2. 
      Expand the Literature Review – Engage more directly with international research on RT sustainability. – Corrected.
3. 
      Deepen the Discussion of Findings – Provide a more nuanced interpretation of student attitudes, rather than focusing solely on dissatisfaction. – Corrected.
4. 
      Strengthen Methodological Justifications – Offer more detail on the sample size and gender balance considerations. – Corrected.
5. 
      Improve Data Presentation – Ensure figures and tables are clearly labelled and contextualised. – Corrected.
6. 
      Consider Future Implications – Rather than concluding RT is unsustainable, explore how it might be improved in the Serbian context. – Corrected.

Overall, this is a valuable study that raises important questions, but it could be further refined to offer a more balanced and globally relevant contribution to the field.

1. 
   The title is quite long and could be streamlined for clarity and impact. Long titles can sometimes be unwieldy, making it harder for readers to grasp the focus of the paper quickly. A more concise title can improve readability and make the research more accessible while retaining key details. Currently the title: 
   •    Overly detailed: It includes multiple aspects that could be better summarised.
   •    Repetitive phrasing: "Sustainability" appears twice, which could be redundant.
   •    Clunky structure: The phrase "about Problems of its Implementations and (Un)Sustainability in Non-Crisis Times" is cumbersome.
   A clearer, more streamlined title could be:
   1.    Sustainability of Remote Teaching in Serbia: Post-Pandemic Perspectives from Female Education Students
   2.    Female University Students’ Attitudes on Remote Teaching in Serbia: Challenges and Post-Pandemic Sustainability
   3.    Remote Teaching in Serbia: Perceived Challenges and Post-Pandemic Sustainability
   4.    Evaluating the Sustainability of Remote Teaching in Serbia: Perspectives from Female Education Students.
   These alternatives retain the essential elements while improving clarity and impact. 

As we have already stated, your help regarding the title is of extreme importance to us and we chose the first versionas the most descriptive one regarding the topic of the paper and the sample, although the third title also sounds great.

2. 
   While I acknowledge that the use of the impersonal passive voice or objective tone, such as ‘The researchers…’ is common in academic writing and is intended to focus on the research rather than the researchers, it is often assumed that this style makes the writing appear more formal and objective. Its purpose is typically to maintain neutrality and emphasise the work itself, rather than the individuals conducting it.

However, I question this practice, as it obscures the role of the researcher/s in shaping the study, raising ethical concerns related to transparency and accountability. By removing the researcher’s presence, this approach may imply that the research is entirely objective or detached from human influence. Yet, all research is inherently guided by the choices, interpretations, and biases of its authors. This approach could mislead readers into believing the findings are purely factual, ignoring the subjective decision-making involved in selecting methods, interpreting data, and framing conclusions.

I argue that it is ethically important to acknowledge the researcher’s role in the research process to promote integrity, encourage reflexivity, and ensure that the study’s limitations and potential biases are transparent to the reader. Consistently, writing in the first person, as demonstrated on page 28, 32, can foster accountability, ownership, and clarity, making it evident who is responsible for the research decisions and outcomes, and how the authors are positioned with-in their work.

We agree that it is impossible to exclude the researcher’s personality from the research or all individual differences brought by the researcher. However, it is a universal characteristic of all scientific methods, so we are not sure how exactly to exclude the universal. What we insisted most in the course of writing this paper is full objectivity and anonymity of data collection, and that is why the snowball sampling was applies. We also paid special attention to the context of result interpretation since it is impossible to compare directly our results to those in the countries whose cultural and social context differs largely from our country. For example, great satisfaction with ERT was recorded in the studies conducted in the Gulf countries during the pandemic. The reason for this may also be the intervening variable in the form of economic power or those countries, enabling them better preconditions, i.e., internet and devices, and the possibility of hiring best experts in teaching and maintaining, updating and monitoring the ERT system itself, as well as the acquisition of material previously used ion ERT during natural disasters in the USA and the pandemics in Asia. On the other hand, population density and climate conditions could make this form of teaching far more desirable. Thirdly, the women’s right to education and aligning the method of education with Sharia rules and religious beliefs of the population is yet another argument for the satisfaction with this form of teaching. Women who want to be educated via RT will definitely have greater support in society and family since there is no direct contact with male teachers and faculty staff and, moreover, they will not have to take care of the dress code since they are at home, and they do not need to have an adequate male chaperone since they can use the asynchronous form of RT or, if they use the synchronous form, they can turn off the camera or ensure the presence of a family member during their classes.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is of current importance for further empirical and theoretical elaboration on post-pandemic remote teaching.

The introduction provides a solid framework for further research.

The paper has a strong theoretical background and provides a well-structured description of materials and methods. The respective section paragraphs describe the sample, procedure, instruments, independent and dependent variables, and data processing methods.

The Results section introduces detailed data in line with the research tasks, and the Discussion section contains a consistent reflection of the authors regarding the themes under study.

 However, the paper might gain even more logical transparency, and consistency from restructuring steps.

First, it is possible to divide the introduction section into the introduction itself ( up to line 108? The part that describes the situation in the country )  and the section on   Literature review (starting with the sentence  “Comprehensive literature – line 108, ending part).

Second,  the title of the paper and  the  goal  as specified in the abstract (That is why the question arises of sustainability of remote teaching after the pandemic and effects and  experiences with emergency form of this method of teaching- lines 17-19 ) do not match the goal in the introduction (“The research was aimed at establishing whether there were differences in the digital competences of the students, what potential technical factors might contribute to following ERT, whether the excessive use of digital technology led to the emergence of ZEF and how all these factors might contribute to the perception of satisfaction, efficiency, and sustainability of RT among the  students of the faculties of teacher education, lines 184-189)

Third, the wording of the research goal is introduced as a rather long sentence (lines 84-189), see above. Moreover, this WORDING DOES NOT MATCH THE STRUCTURE of section 3 Results where there are only two subparts: 3.1. Attitudes towards teaching and 3.2. Zoom Exhaustion & Fatigue results

Therefore, bearing in mind the above-mentioned points, it seems possible to recommend the following:

1. To specify  the goal as it goes in the title:

This goal is two-fold and aims to explore  the Sustainability of Remote Teaching after the COVID-19 Pandemic by Analyzing Attitudes of Female University Students of Education Faculties in Serbia about Problems of its Implementations in Non-Crisis Times (capitals  are expected to be removed!)

2. To repeat  this suggested version  as the goal   in lines 184-189 of the current introduction version.

3. Further on, to introduce and specify the research questions that are to be considered to reach the goal   as they are currently clearly exposed in the Results section (see the heading of the subparts in section 3 Results):

To reach the above goal, the following research questions should be considered

(it should be taken into the account, the wording should be close to the headings of the results section and  the empirical data!), i.e.

RQ 1 What are attitudes  of  ……towards RT ( remote  teaching)

RQ 2 What  is the ration ( what are the  dimensions) of   Zoom Exhaustion & Fatigue 

Author Response

The paper is of current importance for further empirical and theoretical elaboration on post-pandemic remote teaching.

The introduction provides a solid framework for further research.

The paper has a strong theoretical background and provides a well-structured description of materials and methods. The respective section paragraphs describe the sample, procedure, instruments, independent and dependent variables, and data processing methods.

The Results section introduces detailed data in line with the research tasks, and the Discussion section contains a consistent reflection of the authors regarding the themes under study.

However, the paper might gain even more logical transparency, and consistency from restructuring steps.

First, it is possible to divide the introduction section into the introduction itself (up to line 108? The part that describes the situation in the country) and the section on   Literature review (starting with the sentence “Comprehensive literature – line 108, ending part).

Second,  the title of the paper and  the  goal  as specified in the abstract (That is why the question arises of sustainability of remote teaching after the pandemic and effects and  experiences with emergency form of this method of teaching- lines 17-19 ) do not match the goal in the introduction (“The research was aimed at establishing whether there were differences in the digital competences of the students, what potential technical factors might contribute to following ERT, whether the excessive use of digital technology led to the emergence of ZEF and how all these factors might contribute to the perception of satisfaction, efficiency, and sustainability of RT among the  students of the faculties of teacher education, lines 184-189)

Third, the wording of the research goal is introduced as a rather long sentence (lines 84-189), see above. Moreover, this WORDING DOES NOT MATCH THE STRUCTURE of section 3 Results where there are only two subparts: 3.1. Attitudes towards teaching and 3.2. Zoom Exhaustion & Fatigue results

Therefore, bearing in mind the above-mentioned points, it seems possible to recommend the following:

1. To specify the goal as it goes in the title:

This goal is two-fold and aims to explore the Sustainability of Remote Teaching after the COVID-19 Pandemic by Analyzing Attitudes of Female University Students of Education Faculties in Serbia about Problems of its Implementations in Non-Crisis Times (capitals are expected to be removed!)

 

2. To repeat this suggested version as the goal   in lines 184-189 of the current introduction version.
3. Further on, to introduce and specify the research questions that are to be considered to reach the goal   as they are currently clearly exposed in the Results section (see the heading of the subparts in section 3 Results):

To reach the above goal, the following research questions should be considered

(it should be taken into the account, the wording should be close to the headings of the results section and the empirical data!), i.e.

RQ 1 What are attitudes of ……towards RT (remote teaching)

RQ 2 What is the ration (what are the dimensions) of   Zoom Exhaustion & Fatigue 

Dear reviewer, we are extremely grateful to you for pointing to necessary improvements and giving quite constructive and specific instructions. We have tried to respect them fully regarding the subtitle in the Introduction, research goals and hypotheses, as well as the Results. We hope that we have succeeded in it. Moreover, we would like to note that we have also changed the title of the paper in line with the recommendations of Reviewer 2. We sincerely thank you for your efforts and support.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the care and attention you’ve brought to the revision of your manuscript and for your generous and detailed responses to my previous feedback. It is clear that you have worked hard to strengthen the paper, and I particularly appreciate the sharper articulation of the research questions, the expanded gender analysis, and the greater contextual clarity regarding the Serbian higher education landscape during the pandemic. These are all meaningful improvements that deepen the contribution of your work.

As I revisit the revised version, however, I continue to feel there is more potential here—particularly in the following areas—if the paper is to fully realise its relevance and resonance beyond the specificities of the Serbian case:

 

1. Sustainability as a Global Question

While the Serbian context is undoubtedly central to your study, and this specificity is a strength, the discussion of RT sustainability would really benefit from being positioned within wider global debates. There is still a sense that the unsustainability of RT is presented as an inevitable outcome, rather than something contingent, shaped by particular infrastructural, social, and economic conditions. Could you draw more explicitly on international cases where remote and blended learning models have been made to work, not to diminish the Serbian experience, but to offer a more comparative, critical reflection on what sustainability might mean in different contexts?

2. Fatigue, Trauma, and the Crisis Frame

Your reflections on Zoom fatigue are important, and the pandemic context is obviously inseparable from these experiences. However, there’s an opportunity here to probe more deeply: are these negative perceptions of RT primarily a response to the conditions of crisis, or are they about RT itself? The paper would benefit from a more nuanced interrogation of whether fatigue and disengagement are pandemic-specific, or whether they reveal more fundamental tensions in online pedagogy that would persist beyond emergency contexts. I feel this could add real depth to your argument.

3. Researcher Positionality

I appreciate your thoughtful response to my previous comments on researcher voice. I understand your desire to maintain objectivity, and I recognise the cultural norms that often guide academic writing in this area. Still, I wonder whether greater reflexivity—not necessarily through a full shift to first person, but through acknowledging your own positionality as researchers operating within this system—might enhance the paper’s transparency and ethical accountability. After all, the very conditions you are describing have shaped not only your participants’ experiences but your own roles in producing this research.

4. Reference List and Integration

Thank you for extending the international literature. That said, the manuscript is still very dense with references, some of which feel peripheral. There is an opportunity to focus the literature review and discussion on the most salient sources, which would improve readability and strengthen your central argument.

Final Notes.

This is a valuable and timely study, and your revisions have significantly advanced the manuscript. With further attention to these areas—global positioning, theoretical deepening around fatigue, ethical reflexivity, and literature focus—I believe the paper can make an even stronger contribution, both within Serbia and internationally.

Thank you again for your commitment to this work and engagement with the review process. I look forward to seeing how it continues to evolve.

Author Response

Dear reviewers, thank you for your commitment. Accordingly, we have considered your new suggestions for improving the paper.

1. Sustainability as a Global Question

While the Serbian context is undoubtedly central to your study, and this specificity is a strength, the discussion of RT sustainability would really benefit from being positioned within wider global debates. There is still a sense that the unsustainability of RT is presented as an inevitable outcome, rather than something contingent, shaped by particular infrastructural, social, and economic conditions. Could you draw more explicitly on international cases where remote and blended learning models have been made to work, not to diminish the Serbian experience, but to offer a more comparative, critical reflection on what sustainability might mean in different contexts?

Dear reviewer, we are aware of your good intentions and wish to contribute to the quality improvement of our text, but we would like to point to the following fact. In our paper we examine the application of ERT during the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. Why not RT? Because RT was not developed in Serbia whatsoever. Before the COVID-19, pandemic it was theoretically discussed, but in practice there were very few study programs accredited for RT (2.6%, as stated in Reference 4).With the outbreak of the COVID-19pandemic, entire teaching turned into remote teaching, but now as an emergency. Therefore, the programs envisaged for classroom implementation were “transferred” into the virtual world, concerning universities, while in primary and secondary schools it was transferred into electronic mass media (television) and the virtual world. That is why we examine ERT and the university students’ attitudes towards ERT, making a generalizing leap and trying to find out how they would accept RT in normal circumstances. That is why we cannot connect the research into RT in Serbia with any other research into RT in the manner recommended by you. Our students have only the experience of ERT and on this basis they form their attitudes about RT.Therefore, the focus of our examination of the literature is on ERT itself (primarily in our country and, later on, at your suggestion, in the global context as well), and not on RT, and that is why in the text we list detailed differences between these two concepts. This may have caused confusion. Moreover, sustainability of remote and blended learning models in very near future may be brought into question with the emergence of AI, which will lead to radical changes in all aspects of the learning process. We would like to emphasize that AI-supported learning may, but not necessarily, be related to RT. However, it may be assumed that RT development will proceed in the direction which will imply that RT is supported by AI.Since you suggested it as an objection, we added RT development based on ERT experiences in the COVID-19 pandemic as one of the possible future research directions in Conclusions, since we agree with you that it may be useful in a different research context. However, if you still insist on this objection, we kindly ask you to point to all specific references you find relevant.

2. Fatigue, Trauma, and the Crisis Frame

Your reflections on Zoom fatigue are important, and the pandemic context is obviously inseparable from these experiences. However, there’s an opportunity here to probe more deeply: are these negative perceptions of RT primarily a response to the conditions of crisis, or are they about RT itself? The paper would benefit from a more nuanced interrogation of whether fatigue and disengagement are pandemic-specific, or whether they reveal more fundamental tensions in online pedagogy that would persist beyond emergency contexts. I feel this could add real depth to your argument.

Dear reviewer,we agree with you and in the previous version of the text we pointed to the connection of ZEF with all forms of video-conferences, including RT forms of learning, particularly the synchronous ones (regardless of the presence or absence of the pandemic). This primarily refers to Zoom, since it is most frequently used worldwide, while in the meantime, between our two exchanges, Skype was officially retired. ZEF has also been detected in previous research, before the pandemic, primarily in the domain of organizational psychology and care for employees’ mental health. We believe, as we have stated in the revised version of the work, that the pandemic only put this issue into the focus of attention, while the intensity of the phenomenon itself was more pronounced than usual, since restricted freedom of movement, along with the anxiety due to general uncertainty, made people turned people to digital technologies more than ever before. However, as you suggested, we emphasized it additionally in this version of the paper, in case it was not sufficiently precise in the previous version.

3. Researcher Positionality

I appreciate your thoughtful response to my previous comments on researcher voice. I understand your desire to maintain objectivity, and I recognise the cultural norms that often guide academic writing in this area. Still, I wonder whether greater reflexivity—not necessarily through a full shift to first person, but through acknowledging your own positionality as researchers operating within this system—might enhance the paper’s transparency and ethical accountability. After all, the very conditions you are describing have shaped not only your participants’ experiences but your own roles in producing this research.

Dear reviewer,we agree with you that, of course, just like you, we have our own view and attitude about the aspects of remote teaching during the pandemic. However, the aim of our paper is not a reflexion about our personal experiences or writing a review paper. We have read papers like that while preparing this text, but we would like to repeat that our research is primarily empirical and discussion-based, while conclusions are based on the date obtained empirically, on the sample as defined. Thus, we cannot be both the object and the subject of observation because it is a long-outdated concept of Structuralism as a psychological theory. We have given Footnote 1 based on our personal experience and it serves solely as an illustration of the generation gap caused by the development of modern technologies which could contribute to a critical attitude towards ERT and potentially towards RT, but also as an example to which we could add the experiences of other colleagues in the implementation of ERT throughout the world. However, if you think that this footnote is out of the context, we will leave it out. We are not trying to impose our experience in a broader context and we do not deny that some experiences with ERT (but not with RT) were positive, although most studies – as many as 90 % of those we had the opportunityto read –speak about bad sides of ERT. We would be grateful if you could point to those sources, although we believe that the main reason for not seeing eye to eye is that we have based our paper and literature on the literature about ERT and not RT, because on the basis of the experience about ERT, which is the only similar one to the experience of the students in Serbia, we are trying to conclude how they would accept the RT model in normal circumstances.

4. Reference List and Integration

Thank you for extending the international literature. That said, the manuscript is still very dense with references, some of which feel peripheral. There is an opportunity to focus the literature review and discussion on the most salient sources, which would improve readability and strengthen your central argument.

Dear reviewer, having since you have repeated this objection although we have clarified our attitude – that the entire included literature is valid, scientifically based and relevant from the aspect of the research subject and that we do not believe that there are less valuable studies, but only those that are more or less connected with the topic, we would like to point out that we have not cited the studies which were less connected with the subject, despite having read them, which is our discriminatory right. However, in order to consider their omission, we would like to draw your attention that it might seriously disturb the coherence of the paper as such and substantially change the text, if that is the only reference we cite – in that case it may not be treated as “minor revisions”, as you have stated in your assessment. In that case, we need the detail list of references that you have on your mind.

Final Notes.

This is a valuable and timely study, and your revisions have significantly advanced the manuscript. With further attention to these areas—global positioning, theoretical deepening around fatigue, ethical reflexivity, and literature focus—I believe the paper can make an even stronger contribution, both within Serbia and internationally.

Thank you again for your commitment to this work and engagement with the review process. I look forward to seeing how it continues to evolve.

We would also like to thank you for your commitment and time.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx