Emergency Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic of the King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah: A Report on Stakeholder’s Opinions
, Md. Abu Taleb 1,*, Riyadh F. Halawani 1, Abdurazag Tammar 1, Shreef Mahmood 2 and Khan Rubayet Rahaman 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is well-written and interesting. Ref. [13] should be revised.
I recommended this article for publication in Sustainability.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have studied the emergency management in responding the Covid-19 pandemic disease outbreak at KAU, Jeddah. The introduction part is little lengthy and needs to be curtailed with suitable references. The materials and method needs to be given more data such as vaccination percentage of the students, faculty and staff of the university. The outstation campuses of the university if any, data of that centre may also be added for better outcome of the results. The results section has been written well, however, the presentation in the charts could be better (quality is not good). The data presented in tables is okay. Reference section is not as per the journal guidelines. Please check the reference style and also check the volume and pages of the journal. Also see the comments given in the PDF and correct/rectify the suggestions.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The emergency management has been adopted by the educational institutions around the world including the Middle East to manage the ongoing pandemic. This paper aims to evaluate the emergency 22 response mechanisms of Covid-19 at the King Abdulaziz University (KAU) by inter-viewing major 23 stakeholder's opinions through cross-sectional survey. However, the paper has some problems as follows:
(1) The data is too few. Only 250 samples were collected.
(2) The questions concerning emergency responding to Covid-19 are only six.
(3) The paper just adopts some simple statistical methods to analyze the questionnaires.
(4) The method involved in the paper is not creative.
(5) The recommendations proposed in the paper is similar to many papers.
(6) The paper can be considered as a report. It lacks the deep scientific analysis.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have edited the MS as per suggestion, however, at few places spell check are required.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The manuscript has been checked thoroughly and edited by MDPI English Language editing service, Please be seen attached English Language editing certificate issued by MDPI.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The number of the sample is too few. It should be increased. The contribution of the paper should be presented one by one.
Author Response
1) The whole manuscript has been edited by MDPI English language editing service as per reviewer suggestion.
2) The samples has been increased from 250 to 350 by rapid survey applying same questionnaire using different what'sApp groups of KAU stakeholders.
3) The paper contribution has been corrected as per reviewer suggestion.
