Academics in Lockdown: A Gendered Perspective on Self-Esteem in Academia during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
- In the abstract the aim of the research should be clearly stated. Abstract should be improved so that it clearly presents the relevance of the research, research aim, methods and research results. The results of the research should be presented in a very concise way.
- It is recommended not to divide the introduction into subsections 1.1. and 1.2.
- A clear and specific aim of the research should be formulated.
- To make it easier to understand the essence of the research, the authors should name the stages of the research and explain them. Authors should clearly state whether the research is actually quantitative or qualitative. In addition, when describing the conducted research, the authors should pay more attention to the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.
- The results section should be supplemented. Research results should be systematized and summarized. Tables can be made for this. In qualitative analysis, data is usually categorized.
- It remains unclear what the authors have found new. What is the significance of the research?
- Conclusions should be written.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The theme is interesting. In general it was topical at least a year ago.
The research objectives I believe need clarification and most likely reformulation.
The "Materials and methods" section needs to be clarified. The authors should clearly argue why the 2020 results are sent for publication in 2023. Already the impact of the data seems low in a context where other crises seem to be more real or present.
The research design is unclear.
Perhaps a graphical presentation of the sample would have been useful. In addition, presentation of other demographic characteristics would have supported understanding of the research.
Many ideas presented in the introduction are reformulated in the results section. The authors write about quantitative research and finally turn to qualitative research. The two types of research can be combined but also considered as separate. In this study it is not clear which is the quantitative part of the research.
Possibly the authors will make further arguments so that the reader can reproduce the steps of the study.
The results section should be rewritten.
The discussion section is relatively well written. I don't clearly identify the limitations of the research but also what the study brings that is new. What are the strengths of the research? What does it bring that is new compared to the pandemic research?
I appreciate the work done by the authors. However, some clarifications are needed.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I have gone over this paper twice as well as having reviewed more than a dozen other papers on the influences that the COVID lockdown has had and I believe that this paper is generally very well written and is important. The sample is exceptional. In terms of suggestions for changes I believe that you might want to add additional suggestions for future research as it is in doing this that papers tend to have a strong impact on the literature which I believe is a desire that you likely have doing such significant research. It is likely because of this that Research.com rates this journal above the Academy of Management Journal. Michael Hitt, the former Editor-In-Chief of the Academy of Management Journal gave a talk at the Said Business School at the University of Oxford from November 2022. In that talk he spoke about how to publish impactful research. He said that for impactful research that it is often a good idea to have 20% of a paper focus on what has been done in an area, 40% on what is currently being done, and 40% on what should be done in the future.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have taken note of the comments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your positive response.
Reviewer 2 Report
The study analysed is substantially improved.
Adjustments are needed in the objectives section. It would have been useful to specify what you propose to implement and analyse. In this form (I am referring to the objectives) it rather seems to take over what others have done previously.
In the ”discussion” section I think it would be good to point out what the new study brings and more specifically what the usefulness is.
Congratulations on your work and effort.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your positive comments. With regards your further suggestions:
- Adjustments are needed in the objectives section. It would have been useful to specify what you propose to implement and analyse. In this form (I am referring to the objectives) it rather seems to take over what others have done previously. We have added in another sentence to bring this to the fore more explicitly - see lines 72-75.
- In the ”discussion” section I think it would be good to point out what the new study brings and more specifically what the usefulness is. We have added 3 more sentences that should clarify both these aspects - see lines 444-446; 465-468; 524-526.
Thank you again for your useful suggestions.
