Attitudes and Opinions of Biomedical Students: Digital Education Questionnaire
, Maja Nikolic 4, Jelena Dimitrijevic 3, Olivera Milovanovic 1, Katarina Djordjevic 1, Marko Folic 1, Ljiljana Tasic 1, Vladimir Reshetnikov 2, Maria Mikerova 2, Dragan Milovanovic 5 and Vladimir Jakovljevic 4,6
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has a good structure. But, the tables that are presented have an inappropriate format. The authors should review the format of the different tables and the figure should add the result labels of the different elements represented in the figure.
Author Response
R1
The article has a good structure. But, the tables that are presented have an inappropriate format. The authors should review the format of the different tables and the figure should add the result labels of the different elements represented in the figure.
A: Thank you for this comment. We done huge changes and completely reorganized the Tables. Please see that we Table 2 converted into Figure 1, Table 3 into Figure 2 and Figure 3 and Pages 7, 8 and 13.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. I would rephrase parts of the manuscript with similar descriptives such as “This world is constantly changing…”, “affected every aspect of our lives…”, “education is a fundamental human right…” to more professional and straightforward sentences.
2. The focus of this research was on biomedical students, however, “biomedical students from all fields” is quite broad. Do these students include those in clinical studies or only those in areas such as biology, chemistry, etc.? Medical students trained for clinical degrees would generally require different classes and training from students in more traditional fields. What classes were included in this study? Medical students often require in-person classes such as lab courses, please mention how the online study experience for students in the biomedical field may be different from students in maybe arts and social sciences.
Author Response
R2
I would rephrase parts of the manuscript with similar descriptives such as “This world is constantly changing…”, “affected every aspect of our lives…”, “education is a fundamental human right…” to more professional and straightforward sentences.
A: Thank you for this observation. We agree with this proposal and we change this sentences. Please see Section Introduction.
- The focus of this research was on biomedical students, however, “biomedical students from all fields” is quite broad. Do these students include those in clinical studies or only those in areas such as biology, chemistry, etc.? Medical students trained for clinical degrees would generally require different classes and training from students in more traditional fields. What classes were included in this study? Medical students often require in-person classes such as lab courses, please mention how the online study experience for students in the biomedical field may be different from students in maybe arts and social sciences.
A: Biomedical students according to legal provisions in Serbia include students of medicine, stomatology and pharmacy at the undergraduate or postgraduate level. Also, arts and social sciences students were not included at study sample and in accordance to study design it was not possible to compare how the online study experience for students in the biomedical field may be different from students in maybe arts and social sciences. Lab courses in our study participants was performed within the small group with mandatory compliance with all proposed epidemiological measures. This study for the first time examined the experiences of students from medical, pharmacy and dentistry faculty during online education, especially regarding the clinical skills and clinical subjects. That is the second reason why we not included the students from other similar faculties.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I suggest you find a different outlet for your research herein. Sustainability is not the proper journal for this kind of work. Also, the manuscript is extremely poorly written and you need to seek help from a profession English and scientific writing editor. I have started to fix the numerous errors below and will provide guidelines as far as I got, but at some point it became obvious that almost every line has some sort of language/writing error.
Structure-wise, the manuscript is also weak. For example, lines 352-402 do not belong to the Discussion, but rather to the Introduction section. Which leaves the Discussion uncovered...
References are not formatted in a unitary fashion: sometimes the year is in round brackets, other times it is not; sometimes journal titles are italicized, sometimes not, etc. When a reference is a website (e.g. 14 and 19), you need to mention the date the website was accessed to retrieve the information, because websites appear, disappear and change continuously.
Once again, below a mere sampler of language/writing mistakes, which hopefully will aid you when preparing a different version for another journal:
Line 28 and 94: " students' " (apostrophe after the s because there is more than one single student)
Line 32-33: it should read something like this: "In this study, a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.904 was obtained, which indicated good internal consistency"
Line 35: Is the "p=0.000" value the result of rounding to three decimals or an absolute zero? Are you sure this is correct?
Lines 44 & 47: health threats (not treats)
Line 50: Confrontation (not Confronting) - this is a frequent mistake where you use gerunds instead of nouns
Line 72: crucial (with a "c")
Line 80: education (no "al" at the end)
Line 81: FOR these purposes
Lines 84-86: weak significance, limited to Serbia (not a good "sales pitch")
Line 109: inclusion (noun needed)
Lines 115, 127 and 136: Use of first person is to be avoided as much as possible in scientific writing!
Lines 107-108 , 140, 160: English grammar issues
Line 144: "close-ended"
Line 144-145: "graduated"? or do you mean "gradually developing"?
Line 181: this is an example where complete rephrasing and restructuring is needed, for example: "The basic characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 2".
Line 182: "female students being predominant" (rephrase!)
Line 183: the majority (not the most) of participants
................. (and many more issues)
Another frequent issue is the misplacement of verb before noun, when in fact the noun should precede the verb, e.g. see line 307
These are all things that come natural to native English speakers or professional editors, so please seek help from one of these!
Author Response
R3
Dear authors,
I suggest you find a different outlet for your research herein. Sustainability is not the proper journal for this kind of work. Also, the manuscript is extremely poorly written and you need to seek help from a profession English and scientific writing editor. I have started to fix the numerous errors below and will provide guidelines as far as I got, but at some point it became obvious that almost every line has some sort of language/writing error.
A: Dear reviewer, thank you on this comment. We send our work to professional English lecture so we hope that there will be minimal writing error. Also, we attached a Certificate of done English lecture, please see in Supplementary material (not for review).
Structure-wise, the manuscript is also weak. For example, lines 352-402 do not belong to the Discussion, but rather to the Introduction section. Which leaves the Discussion uncovered...
A: The authors would not agree with this statement and would keep the existing structure.
References are not formatted in a unitary fashion: sometimes the year is in round brackets, other times it is not; sometimes journal titles are italicized, sometimes not, etc. When a reference is a website (e.g. 14 and 19), you need to mention the date the website was accessed to retrieve the information, because websites appear, disappear and change continuously.
A: References are formatted in a unitary fashion now, please see it through the revised manuscript. Please see Reference list.
Once again, below a mere sampler of language/writing mistakes, which hopefully will aid you when preparing a different version for another journal:
Line 28 and 94: " students' " (apostrophe after the s because there is more than one single student)
It is corrected now.
Line 32-33: it should read something like this: "In this study, a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.904 was obtained, which indicated good internal consistency"
It is corrected now.
Line 35: Is the "p=0.000" value the result of rounding to three decimals or an absolute zero? Are you sure this is correct?
It is corrected now.
Lines 44 & 47: health threats (not treats)
It is corrected now.
Line 50: Confrontation (not Confronting) - this is a frequent mistake where you use gerunds instead of nouns
It is corrected now.
Line 72: crucial (with a "c")
It is corrected now.
Line 80: education (no "al" at the end)
Educational is used as adjective in our manuscript.
Line 81: FOR these purposes
Lines 84-86: weak significance, limited to Serbia (not a good "sales pitch")
Line 109: inclusion (noun needed)
Lines 115, 127 and 136: Use of first person is to be avoided as much as possible in scientific writing!
Lines 107-108 , 140, 160: English grammar issues
Line 144: "close-ended"
Line 144-145: "graduated"? or do you mean "gradually developing"?
Line 181: this is an example where complete rephrasing and restructuring is needed, for example: "The basic characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 2".
Line 182: "female students being predominant" (rephrase!)
Line 183: the majority (not the most) of participants
................. (and many more issues)
A: Thank you for all this language observations. We coorected all of them and lectured chole manuscript by professional Lecturer (Certificate attached). Thank you.
Another frequent issue is the misplacement of verb before noun, when in fact the noun should precede the verb, e.g. see line 307
It is corrected now.
These are all things that come natural to native English speakers or professional editors, so please seek help from one of these!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
-Figure captions are typically written Below, not above the referred figure
-Significant figure issues throughout the manuscript: when the mean has two decimale, the +/- error that follows should also have the same number of decimals
-for the new References written in Red color, the names of the journals are not italicized
There is a clear improvement of English quality and of writing in general as compared to the previous version
Author Response
R2
-Figure captions are typically written Below, not above the referred figure
A: Corrected according to the request. Please see Figure Legends. Thank you.
-Significant figure issues throughout the manuscript: when the mean has two decimale, the +/- error that follows should also have the same number of decimals
A: Corrected according to the request. Please see Manuscript text. Thank you.
-for the new References written in Red color, the names of the journals are not italicized
A: Corrected according to the request. Please see Reference List. Thank you.
There is a clear improvement of English quality and of writing in general as compared to the previous version
A: Thank you. We done professional English lecture.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
