Challenges and Opportunities for Russian Higher Education amid COVID-19: Teachers’ Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic is very interesting and it is up to date.
However, the paper is very descriptive. I think if the author(s) try to do more analysis and engage more with prior literature, this will be great.
Methodology also is very weak. It needs to be explained in more details. How they developed the survey questions, how many questions, how they decided to analyse the data, etc..
It might be more interesting if you try to link your results to the demographic variables. For example, by age, gender and expierience. Also, author (s) need to provide any quotes from respondents if there was any open questions.
Author Response
We marked yellow colour all corrections in the text.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I recommend that in the Abstract section to respect the mentioned aspects in the requirements of the journal, ex: background, methos etc.
Also, the background mentioned in the Abstract to be more focused on the study is much too long, and the results section does not reach the essence of the study.
I recommend mentioning the period when the study was performed.
I recommend that in the Materials and Methods section, the form and parts of the questionnaire be specified more clearly. I consider that the Methods section is not sufficiently clearly described. And the aspects regarding the forms of organization within the university, should be separated mentioned in another section.
The use of scores for certain items from 1-5 refers to the Likert scale ???
Lines 120-123 repeat the idea, I recommend rewriting.
I recommend you mention the Cronbach's Alpha coefficient for items.
I recommend that the statistics be more elaborate, for the validation of the results.
If the numerical values mentioned sometimes contain two decimals, I recommend that the structure of all tables follow this format.
I recommend that in the Discussions section a more current deepening (2019-2020) of the bibliographic sources be carried out, in order to support the findings of this study.
Author Response
We marked yellow colour all corrections in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper focuses on an interesting issue but has some problems that in my view need to be solved before publication:
- In a number of points statements are very general and not grounded. Examples: Line 57 "Only a third of university students study using e-learning technologies": what is the source? what is meant in detail by eLearnign technologies? Or: in line 90Coursera is defined as "the largest international project in the field of education" which is a questionable statement unless it is detailed what is meant. Or: in line 109 "However, the implementation of e-learning is not always smooth and effective": what si the source? On which ground is the sentence based?
- The very objectives of the study are presented first as "to define and analyze the challenges of online education" (111) and then "to define teachers’ perceptions of online teaching and learning" (121). This creates confusion.
- The issue of teachers’ readiness for online teaching and learning is very complex and has been discussed in literature and puts forward a rather short and simple definition. The paper fails to enter into this debate, while it should. Probably because this lack of theoretical grounding, the methodology lacks information. How and why were the questions on Table 3 selected?
- Finally. in the discussion part some paragraphs again seem not to be grounded on any specific result (like lines 214 220) but rather ideas of the authors. I don't mean these ideas are nit correct, but the link with the study results is not always clear.
Author Response
We marked yellow colour all corrections in the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
happy to accept the paper
Reviewer 2 Report
no comments
