All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for thoroughly addressing all the reviewers' comments, which resulted in a significant improvement of your manuscript.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
The article has improved with the revisions made
The article has improved with the revisions made
The article has improved with the revisions made
The article has improved with the revisions made
Your manuscript was considered novel, interesting and valuable by the reviewers. However, they raised some issues that need to be addressed. Some of their concerns had to do with your methods, such as a providing a better explanation of your sampling method, explaining whether the PANAS scale was validated in the Chinese population, providing justification of the inclusion/exclusion criteria for your study population, and a more thorough description of your methodology. Other issues the reviewers raised had to do with explaining why you selected the population of University professors as well as providing more structure to the manuscript-particularly the abstract-and including a limitations section in your discussion.
Please, submit a detailed rebuttal which shows where and how you have taken all comments and suggestions into consideration. If you do not agree with some of the reviewers’ comments or suggestions, please explain why. Your rebuttal will be critical in making a final decision on your manuscript. Please, note also that your revised version may enter a new round of review by the same or by different reviewers. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that your manuscript will eventually be accepted.
Lack of structure and clarity. Can be improved in the writing.
Good methodology.
Can be improved in procedure, can be improved in description of instruments
The discussion is not rich in content because it lacks structure and clarity to the reader.
The article is novel and of interest.
The manuscript is of interest and I consider it necessary for the authors to improve the manuscript in aspects such as the following:
-It is recommended to clarify and structure the abstract to provide clearer study conclusions.
- It is considered necessary to provide the introduction section with a greater structure and coherence. It would be appropriate to join the ideas by linking one with another.
- A further justification of the objectives of the study is needed.
-It is necessary to justify the selection of study participants, indicate reasons for inclusion, exclusion ...
- It is necessary to improve the methodology section because the procedure followed has not been clear.
- Please add sample questions from the questionnaires used.
- The discussion section add limitations.
- The discussion is not rich in content because it lacks structure and clarity to the reader.
no comment
In methods, the authors, please explain more about the convenience sampling method, there remains the doubt if it is a snowball sampling or the authors chose the institutions.
The PANAS scale was validated for the Chinese population? please include the data.
Excellent statistical analysis was performed to validate the survey on psychological adjustments to online teaching.
In the discussion section, it is observed that there is little discussion about university professors. The discussion is focused on the characteristics found in the study and what could have been in any job. What makes working with university professors particular?
In the abstract, authors are encouraged to include the proportion of each latent class in the abstract. I think it is too ambiguous to say that one latent class is more prominent than another.
The second paragraph says, " Although China’s first large-scale online teaching program has achieved (perhaps even exceeded)," the phrase in parenthesis is not known if it is the authors' opinion or Dauguang's reference.
The introduction is engaging and complete about the issues of latent profile analysis and how affective characteristics can influence subjects. However, there remains an essential gap about university teachers, their characteristics, why to study them; university teachers were (before COVID-19) a job with risks in their health...and many more questions.
In the discussion section, it is observed that there is little discussion about university professors. The discussion is focused on the characteristics found in the study and what could have been in any job. What makes working with university professors particular?
The title of table 2 is very general. It is suggested to change the title to one related to the analysis shown.
In Table 4 and the statistical analysis section, the post-hoc test used is not indicated.
In Figure 1, I understand that these are averages. If so, the authors should include the standard deviations.
Authors are suggested to standardize the term "teacher." According to the study, a correct term should be "professor."
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.