How Is Telework Experienced in Academia?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript discusses the results of interesting systematic analysis of interviews with academic personnel regarding their experience related to telework. Studied relations between the academic freedom and rules, opportunities and challenges of telework are important for further development of the use of telework in various sectors of economy.

In my opinion the manuscript is based on well designed studies and informative, however some editing imperfections are suggested to be improved.

1. The Abstract is well organized and sufficiently characterize the study performed.
2. Introduction section is sufficiently informative.
3. Materials and Methods section provides the key characteristic of performed interviews and analysis. However it is suggested to provide more detailed explanation why the relatively small scale of interviews (26) was considered to be sufficient to reach “saturation” (page 3, lines 132-136).
4. Results section is sufficiently informative.
5. Discussion section is sufficiently informative, however it is suggested to add here (or alternatively in the Results section) graphical/table summary of the obtained key results of discussed studies and also the most significant differences in the results obtained from the academic personnel and known from the research with other jobs – it would help readers very much in perception of results of studies discussed in the manuscript.
6. Conclusion section is sufficiently informative and based on presented results of performed studies.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The part of the materials and methods need to be supplemented in detail to enhance academic value. The paper is less academic and strict. It is suggested to change to other journals.

1. The research topic is not suitable for this journal, especially the research paradigm.
2. There are few research methods, especially the method model.
3. The research conclusion lacks quantitative support, especially the significance and stability of the research conclusions need to be further verified.

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A very interesting read, and I certainly can relate it with my own experience. The topic is timely since most academics are teleworking nowadays. The paper is well written and the analysis and discussion are good. I only have several minor comments for consideration:

• As a gap, the introduction states that past research is too one dimensional. I understand how the research address this gap after reading the analysis and discussion. I think how the research address this one dimensionality issue should be made clear in the introduction.
• The introduction states, "It is also suggested that more attention should be paid to the work conditions at the office, as these may change during part-time telework." I don't understand what this means and how it relates to the research.
• Section 2.1: "such as e.g." Delete one.
• Section 2.2. I believe it should be associate professor rather than associated professor.
• The authors should explain briefly how the seven categories were developed inductively.
• The relationship between sections 3 and 4 should be explained a bit more. I'm not clear how the authors transition from the seven categories to the four discussion themes (4.1-4.4).

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This manuscript on “How is telework experienced in academia?” is timely. The author tackled a very interesting research topic using qualitative approach to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomena. I enjoyed reading the manuscript and the research results. I have some points which could improve the final draft of the manuscript.

1. The second part of the second sentence in abstract “…and this seems to affect their well-being, work 10 performance and recovery in opposing ways” is interesting but I did not find a good like between the results and this point in the abstract nor in the conclusion.  
2. It would be beneficial if the author could add statistical information about telework in academia.
3. Despite the authors have linked the crises and pandemic, e.g. COVID-19, to telework in a couple of parts in the manuscript, it would be interesting if the authors expand this point further in their discussion.
4. I did not find (unless I miss this) information how the authors identified the interviewees and their telework.
5. Reference about data saturation regarding the number if interviews is also recommended

Overall, this is a good manuscript and quality research well done  

Author Response

Please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the fact, after careful revision, the quality of the article has been improved. It is suggested to supplement the corresponding mathematical methods before publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We appreciate your suggestion. Could you please explain which mathematical methods that are referred to? In accordance with the phenomenographic approach we have displayed our findings as main categories and sub-categories that illustrates the qualitative differences and similarities in the interviewees’ experiences. The number of those categories found in the present study are reported on page 4 line 176-179 and in Table 1 and Figure 1.

We may have misunderstood your request if so, please do not hesitate to return with further requests.  

Sincerely, the authors of the manuscript

Reviewer 4 Report

All issues have been well addressed.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are glad to hear that your are satisfied with our revision. We highly appreciate your input.

Sincerely, the authors of the manuscript

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability.