The Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on the Learning Process among Students: A Comparison between Jordan and Turkey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has a very high level of similarity detected using Ithenticate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Please see the attachment (point-by-point responses to the comments).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article under review is topical, interesting and the subject matter fits well within the scope of the journal. However, there are some aspects that should be clarified by the authors:
1. it is not clear to me the rationale for comparing the specific countries of Turkey and Jordan. It should be explained in the introduction the aspects that justify the interest of comparing these two specific countries (e.g., because they have carried out similar health measures during the pandemic, if that is the case, or because perhaps there are similarities between their educational systems, etc.).
2. The subsections in the Materials and Methods section should be more clearly differentiated and numbered.
3. The authors ensure, as far as I understand, that the data collected are normally distributed. In that case, it is not clear to me why they have chosen to use nonparametric statistical tests (Mann-Whitney U in particular) to compare means.
4. The variables, both dependent and independent, of the investigation are not described, at least explicitly. They should be included in the Materials and Methods section.
5. It would be useful to explain whether the area of knowledge of the students surveyed influences their responses, in the authors' perspective.
6. I believe that the authors should expand the introduction, including references to works that have studied variables related to pandemic stress in different populations linked to education (e.g., teachers) and in other geographic areas different from that of the study. I propose some examples:
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063732
https://doi.org/10.3390/computers10060075
https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091172
7. The way the results tables are written is complicated to read. I suggest writing in two different columns the information that appears as the first column in the different tables and putting mean and standard deviation in different columns.
8. I suggest including some graphical representation that clarifies the data expressed in the different tables.
9. The conclusions of the study should be presented in greater detail and include recommendations and future lines of research derived from the results of the study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Please see the attachment (point-by-point responses to the comments).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. What is the coefficient for studying the consistency of the internal items of the applied questionnaire?
2. I also recommend adding more arguments from the literature to strengthen your study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Please see the attachment (point-by-point responses to the comments).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is quite unclear, and considerable improvements are needed to make it publishable. In addition, the degree of similarity identified using Ithenticate is still, in my view, high, 18%.
Anyway, I will make a few comments about the paper:
- There is no presentation of the research tool, especially since it is a tool developed specifically for this study (or so it appears from the text).
- There is no exploratory factor analysis justifying the use of the seven items as part of the same factor/construct.
- At one point, the country (Turkey and Jordan) is mentioned as the dependent variable, which is not correct. "Country”, like the other variables mentioned (age, gender etc.), is an independent variable and not a dependent variable.
- Reference to Cronbach's alpha coefficient is given in two places, but it is not mentioned for what it is calculated (which items?) In the Results, the statement The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the study survey was found to be 0.82 appears, but it is not mentioned what this value refers to.
- In the submitted version, there are no tables referred to in the text.
- "A significant difference was observed between the Turkish and Jordanian students regarding ranking the practical courses (p-value= 0.005)..." the value of the t-test is not presented (if the comparison between countries was carried out with this test).
Author Response
We have revised the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions provided.
Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have adequately answered the questions asked and have responded to the requests, comments and suggestions made. Consequently, they have improved the quality of the article, both in its writing and in its structure and discussion of results.
For some reason I cannot see the Tables in the modified version of the article, although I could see them in the first version.
I also cannot see the Figures that the authors have designed. This problem needs to be corrected.
On the other hand, I suggest adapting the references to the format of the journal and including the DOI in those where it has not been included.
Author Response
We have revised the manuscript according to the comments and suggestions provided.
Please find below our point-by-point responses to the comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
