Educational System Resilience during the COVID-19 Pandemic—Review and Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors revised the initial submitted article and we can notice their efforts. Still, there are some aspects that should be reconsidered:
- the analysis of the entire educational system is a courageous initiative, we do consider than focusing on a specific educational level could have brought more insightful findings;
-figure 2 is might be excluded, only reference to the publication type is sufficient
-the article attempts to analyze too many stakeholders, losing the focus. The selected literature for the meta-analysis consisted of 90 articles. We recommend proper analysis of the recurring themes, as well a model that might properly link the stakeholders.
The authors might carefully reconsider the non-academic use of English in some paragraphs.
Author Response
See the file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Dear authors,
I adore your revision. You had made a substantial enhancement to the manuscript. Nonetheless, a number of significant concerns persist and require further revisions from the authors.
Abstract: The authors have not addressed the issue of a lack of focus or emphasis on the research gaps that should be noted in the abstract, in my opinion. This research gaps stance in the abstract is crucial because it will demonstrate the quality and novelty of your work, which will determine whether the audience chooses to read it further and whether it deserves to be cited. Please continue out the suggested changes.
Introduction: According to my review of your revised manuscript, the introduction has not yet highlighted the research gaps that necessitate the need for your study. I would propose that the authors highlight the research gaps that this publication addresses by clearly formulating the research gaps based on the results of the literature review. Or by citing previous research that identified the research gaps relevant to your study.
This demonstrates the ingenuity of your research and the quality of your work. Which is absolutely necessary for publication in academic journals.
Reviewing articles published in 2020 to 2023 (line 147): I strongly encourage the authors to identify comparable systematic literature reviews that employ the similar method of examining only articles published between 2020 and 2022. Yes, this is due to the influence of Covid. However, it would be ideal if the chosen approach was supported by literature.
You may read and cite these articles if you believe they will help you justify reviewing articles published between 2020 and 2022. As based on my search in Scopus, these articles reviewed papers published within the same/nearly the same timeframe chosen by the authors:
Koh, J.H.L., Daniel, B.K. Shifting online during COVID-19: A systematic review of teaching and learning strategies and their outcomes. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 19, 56 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00361-7
Rosli, M.S.; Saleh, N.S.; Md. Ali, A.; Abu Bakar, S.; Mohd Tahir, L. A Systematic Review of the Technology Acceptance Model for the Sustainability of Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Identified Research Gaps. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11389. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811389
Uğraş, M.; Zengin, E.; Papadakis, S.; Kalogiannakis, M. Early Childhood Learning Losses during COVID-19: Systematic Review. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6199. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15076199
Shefaly Shorey, Travis Lanz-Brian Pereira, Wei Zhou TEO, Emily Ang, Tang Ching LAU, Dujeepa D. Samarasekera, Navigating nursing curriculum change during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-synthesis, Nurse Education in Practice, Volume 65, 2022, 103483, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103483.
2.2 Literature Review Methodology: I can see that you have significantly improved the methodology being employed. Which is a positive aspect.
According to my reading of your revised manuscript, you already have PRISMA's (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) skeleton. Unfortunately, the authors did not cite the PRISMA method itself. Which is a significant flaw in the revised manuscript.
Please read and cite the paper written by the authors of the PRISMA technique.
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst. Rev.2021,10, 89
AND
Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ2021,372, n71
Please also include an appendix containing a list of the ninety articles being reviewed along with their key details. Please ensure that there is a cross-reference to the appendix in the manuscript.
I thank you and wish you the best of luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
We appreciate the efforts to improve the initial and the second form of the article. We do understand that it became difficult to explore in depth the resilience behaviour adopted by the educational institutions and students, due to the initial objective of exploring a variety of stakeholders and several levels of the educational system.
-
Author Response
The document was extensively reviewed and improved in the English.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Much appreciation for the improvements done.
I hope, the comments had facilitated authors in further improving the quality of their article.
Best wishes, and may the article earn a substantial number of citations.
Author Response
The document was extensively reviewed and improved in the English.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article addresses a relevant theme related to education during pandemic times. Still, we do have some suggestions for the authors:
- the abstract might include the main findings of the review undertaken
-the introduction needs more bibliographic argumentation and support
-from the methodological perspective, there is a need for clarification related to the level of education under scrutiny. We consider mixing the primary education level with college level as potentially misleading. Nevertheless, the exclusion criteria should be properly underlined.
-throughout the entire article , we noticed several statements not supported by relevant references or research evidence (e.g. ...lines 26-28, lines 375-377, etc.)
-the model proposed (the implementation model for digital education) is not entirely backed up by the current literature review, undertaken by the authors (for example "digital tools"
- as far as the conclusions are concerned, we recommend an in-depth correlation with the main findings and proposed objectives, as well as clear limits of the present study and future research developments.
Author Response
Reviewer 1: (6 Points)
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, each comment is addressed as follows:
1st) the abstract might include the main findings of the review undertaken
It has been modified to include this.
2nd) the introduction needs more bibliographic argumentation and support
We have worked more on the introduction to include this.
3rd) from the methodological perspective, there is a need for clarification related to the level of education under scrutiny. We consider mixing the primary education level with college level as potentially misleading. Nevertheless, the exclusion criteria should be properly underlined.
Our methodological perspective showed, in general, all the challenges that educational institutions faced and how they dealt with them. It was not a comparative study but a review in general targeting educational system overall. Regarding the exclusion criteria, this study identifies the inclusion criteria in table 2 and any paper that does not meet the defined criteria is excluded, in addition more clarifications were added in the text and figure-1 is updated.
4th) throughout the entire article , we noticed several statements not supported by relevant references or research evidence (e.g. ...lines 26-28, lines 375-377, etc.)
The paper went through major corrections and revisions and all relevant references now are added where needed.
5th) the model proposed (the implementation model for digital education) is not entirely backed up by the current literature review, undertaken by the authors (for example "digital tools"
The model is reviewed, updated, and added in section 4.3. Also, it has been included a final section (Section 5) on “The perspective view and remarks on educational system resilience”
6th) as far as the conclusions are concerned, we recommend an in-depth correlation with the main findings and proposed objectives, as well as clear limits of the present study and future research developments.
The conclusion is totally updated presenting all mentioned points.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper explores the concept of resilience of Online Education using SLR method. I am not certain as to why the authors picked out the term resilience to use when most of the paper contents relates to identifying challanges of on-line education during the panadamic using. Why do you believe that resilience is important to explore? emerged, I am not sure, maybe becuase it is a hype? The paper does not attempt to narrow down the study by for example level of education (Undergraduate university, High school, K12 and so on)
The method for filtering out the papers is missing. How did the authors ended up with 90 articles from over 500 papers? What was the exclusion criteria when they were reading the abstract? Not clear.
The findings are just the usual, listing of the number of articles, publication type, and so on.
Also in the findings, very few concerns are about resilience which is strange since resilience was a key word in the search in the SLR. And the findings on resilience are very general (student, parents, faculty, institution) the rest of the findings are general distance learning issues. Discussions, is very general and does not provide much insights on the findings. The proposed figure 5 appears all of sudden in the paper and not clear how it is emerged or on what basis.
Author Response
Reviewer 2: (4 Points)
Thank you very much for your valuable comments, each comment is addressed as follows:
1st) The paper explores the concept of resilience of Online Education using SLR method. I am not certain as to why the authors picked out the term resilience to use when most of the paper contents relates to identifying challanges of on-line education during the panadamic using. Why do you believe that resilience is important to explore? emerged, I am not sure, maybe becuase it is a hype? The paper does not attempt to narrow down the study by for example level of education (Undergraduate university, High school, K12 and so on)
The concept of resilience is an important aspect to explore in the context of online education, especially in the wake of the pandemic, which has brought about significant changes and challenges to the traditional education system. Resilience refers to the ability of an education system to withstand and adapt to challenges, such as sudden shifts to online learning due to the pandemic, and to continue to deliver high-quality education despite these challenges.
By exploring the concept of resilience in the context of online education using a systematic literature review (SLR) method, we are able to identify the key challenges faced by educators and students in adapting to online learning and to identify strategies and best practices for building a more resilient online education system.
While the paper may not narrow down the study by level of education, the concept of resilience is relevant across all levels of education. The pandemic has affected all levels of education and has highlighted the need for resilience in the face of sudden changes and disruptions.
2nd) The method for filtering out the papers is missing. How did the authors ended up with 90 articles from over 500 papers? What was the exclusion criteria when they were reading the abstract? Not clear.
Regarding the exclusion criteria, this study identifies the inclusion criteria in table 2 and any paper that does not meet the defined criteria will be excluded. And some clarifications are added regarding the exclusion criteria.
3rd) The findings are just the usual, listing of the number of articles, publication type, and so on.
The paper went through radical major changes and now is included Section 5 (“The perspective view and remarks on educational system resilience”) to add more explanation of the perspective and our takeaway.
4th) Also in the findings, very few concerns are about resilience which is strange since resilience was a key word in the search in the SLR. And the findings on resilience are very general (student, parents, faculty, institution) the rest of the findings are general distance learning issues. Discussions , is very general and does not provide much insights on the findings. The proposed figure 5 appears all of sudden in the paper and not clear how it is emerged or on what basis.
The paper went through radical major changes, and we addressed this comment. In this study resilience is the way of the educational institution, educators, students, and parents, respond to urgent changes in the educational environment. Figure 4 (before Figure 5) is represented in section 4.3. Also, section 5 is added to explain more about the perspective.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors.
Thank you for your manuscript.
My comments are:
Abstract
Please elaborate on what research gaps this manuscript addresses.
Please also specify the study/methodological approach utilised. What is the researcher's methodology or review structure?
What implications does this review have for the existing body of knowledge?
Introduction
Here, the research gaps must be mentioned. The necessity of the research must be emphasised here.
Materials and Methods
For 2.1 Review Objectives and Strategies – “The papers published during the period January 2020 to December 2022 are reviewed and classified by the main players of the educational process.” - This requires a citation indicating previous systematic reviews have performed the same.
Why are only Scopus and Web of Science included in this study? This must be explained.
“Finally, in the fifth stage, 90 papers (during the period January 2020 to December 2022) were selected to be analyzed in this study. The research analysis is described in the following sections.” - Before an article can be published in a top-tier publication, its selection and exclusion of articles must follow a certain technique, such as PRISMA.
Result
3.1 Classification based on document type - Why is this info necessary? It should be expanded upon in the introduction. What research gap is filled by these data? It must also be highlighted to evaluate the originality of your content. Equally applicable to 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
Discussion
Need to highlight the unique discovery made by this review, in addition to the description of previous research.
Second, the writers must highlight and compare the findings with those of earlier studies in the field. This would allow readers to acquire substantial expertise in this field.
5 Main Findings and Contributions to this review - I'm uncertain as to what this topic's purpose and message are. Could the authors revise, please?
6 Conclusion
Please underline the gap that this review addresses. Why is this review necessary?
Author Response
Reviewer 3: (7 Points)
1st) Abstract: Please elaborate on what research gaps this manuscript addresses. Please also specify the study/methodological approach utilised. What is the researcher's methodology or review structure? What implications does this review have for the existing body of knowledge?
We have worked more on the abstract, introduction and throughout the text to include this.
2nd) Introduction: Here, the research gaps must be mentioned. The necessity of the research must be emphasised here.
We have worked more on the introduction to include this.
3rd) Materials and Methods: For 2.1 Review Objectives and Strategies – “The papers published during the period January 2020 to December 2022 are reviewed and classified by the main players of the educational process.” - This requires a citation indicating previous systematic reviews have performed the same.
Why are only Scopus and Web of Science included in this study? This must be explained.
“Finally, in the fifth stage, 90 papers (during the period January 2020 to December 2022) were selected to be analyzed in this study. The research analysis is described in the following sections.” - Before an article can be published in a top-tier publication, its selection and exclusion of articles must follow a certain technique, such as PRISMA.
To the best of our knowledge, we are confident that there is no previous review that took the topic and uses the same approach that we used focusing on the main four players in educational system and that is proven in Figure-3. We did cite previous works according to our methodology that support our argument on each point stated. More explanation was added in terms of why we used Scopus and WoS databases. the methodology section was updated, and more clarification added for inclusion and exclusion criteria
4th) Result: 3.1 Classification based on document type - Why is this info necessary? It should be expanded upon in the introduction. What research gap is filled by these data? It must also be highlighted to evaluate the originality of your content. Equally applicable to 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4.
The introduction may need to be further improved by adding 3 paragraphs, the first two about online and regular education systems as benchmark and the third paragraph at the end of introduction to address the significance and research gap as stated in point 2 for this reviewer.
5th) Discussion: Need to highlight the unique discovery made by this review, in addition to the description of previous research. Second, the writers must highlight and compare the findings with those of earlier studies in the field. This would allow readers to acquire substantial expertise in this field.
The paper went through radical major changes and now includes Section 5. It added more explanation of the perspective and our takeaway.
6th) Main Findings and Contributions to this review - I'm uncertain as to what this topic's purpose and message are. Could the authors revise, please?
The paper went through radical major changes and now includes Section 5. It added more explanation of the perspective and our takeaway.
7th) Conclusion: Please underline the gap that this review addresses. Why is this review necessary?
The introduction and conclusion are reconstructed and highlight the gaps. Generally, this review and perspective on educational system resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic addresses the gap in our understanding of the specific strategies and best practices that educational systems can use to become more resilient in the face of future crises.
While there has been a growing body of research on the impact of the pandemic on education systems and the challenges faced by educators and students, there has been less focus on how educational systems can become more resilient and adaptable to future crises and this was demonstrated on Figure-3 (the missing contributions on the intersections of the four players).
