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.
Thanks for making the changes.
[# PeerJ Staff Note - this decision was reviewed and approved by Jafri Abdullah, a PeerJ Section Editor covering this Section #]
Thanks for addressing all the changes as suggested.
The authors substantially improved the manuscript that satisfied all the requirements of basic reporting.
The authors substantially improved the manuscript that satisfied all the requirements of experimental design.
The authors substantially improved the manuscript where findings were well-validated.
This paper is interesting, well done, literature reference are well suited to the topic. The structure of manuscript is professional, according to the journal rules
Study design is correct, however there is lack of information on the living conditions of the teacher surveyed. I indicated this shortage of the study in my first review, but Authors didn't answer to this remark:...whether there were any problems with a conflict of interest among other family members, including access to a computer during remote work.
Findings are interesting and important because as far as I know it is a first paper devoted the teachers' well-being during COVID-19 pandemic in Poland and one of the few in the world.
Dear Authors thank you for your reply and changes made in the manuscript. Please find some suggestions in the text indicated as Comment or marked in yellow.
Try to revise the whole manuscript to avoid unnecessary repetition of information. Lacks clarity on BMI. Check the tables and figures for more consistency.
[# PeerJ Staff Note: Please ensure that all review and editorial comments are addressed in a response letter and any edits or clarifications mentioned in the letter are also inserted into the revised manuscript where appropriate. #]
[# PeerJ Staff Note: You have used, reproduced, adapted, translated and/or validated existing test instrument/questionnaires.
- The Satisfaction with Job Scale (SSP),
- General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) and
- AVEM.
Please provide EITHER written permission from the copyright holder that you have received permission to use this instrument in your research OR evidence that you are using it in accordance with a published license. #]
The authors conducted a study on the assessment of job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and the level of professional burnout of Polish teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Congratulation to the authors to conduct this nice work. The manuscript has good potential and can be accepted after further revision. I have some observations that I think could help the author to improve the manuscript. I have attached my detailed comments in the attached PDF.
The author wrote the manuscript using clear and unambiguous English. I appreciated the author's effort. However, need a minor English language revision, in particular, grammar and punctuation check.
The author nicely wrote the literature review section and provided sufficient references to understand the subject.
The author provided raw data.
High-resolution image must be provided. All tables were good.
The author should give a clear explanation of the hypothesis with justification. I have explicitly commented on the attached PDF.
The article is original and within the scope of the journal.
Research questions were not separately well-defined. I must recommend adding them separately with sufficient justification. See details comment in the attached PDF.
The study designs and methodology are well explained and the different scales used are well exposed. Yet, need a minor revision which I commented on in the attached document.
The ethical standard was ok.
In the statistical section, the tests performed, bivariate correlations, as well as the appropriate analysis used, are correctly indicated. The statistical tool used in this study was robust.
The data was robust, statistically sound, and well-controlled.
In the results section, the data presented in the tables are easily understandable and represent the tests performed.
The discussion section was explained well.
The conclusion section needs a minor revision. See attached document.
The manuscript has good potential. However, it can be accepted after further revision.
Basic reporting needs improvement (particularly reporting of results in texts and tables, and interpretation of results). Specific comments are provided in the attached manuscript file.
Discussion and conclusion should consider the research design- limitations of the cross-sectional study.
Manuscript also needs careful editing- I noticed typos here and there including in tables!
Clarify sampling and analysis. Comments on methods are provided in the manuscript.
Reporting of results needs improvement. Tables needs to be self-explanatory. Current tables are crowded because of unnecessary reporting and poor presentation. Do not write analyses methods in results section. Authors should check published articles in good quality journals to improve their reporting both in texts and tables. Specific comments are attached in the manuscript.
In my opinion Authors should describe how teachers worked, only remotely or also at school, how many hours a day etc.? If remotely, whether there were any problems with a conflict of interest among other family members, including access to a computer. These are factors that could be affecting job satisfaction etc.
I have remarks to the study design. Authors wrote that participants were randomly selected. But we don't know how many schools there are in the region and how many teachers are working in these schools. What percentage of them were randomly selected. Authors didn't explain why data from 412, not 456 teachers (as was indicated in Abstract) were analysed. It is not clear how the survey was performed, it was on-line, internet survey or paper questionnaires? Only in the line 160, in the descrption of AVEM Authors wrote: "A computer program is used for the test" if does it mean that all questionnaires were computer-based? It should be explained in the text
In the lines 131-135 Authors should number questions, because in the line 224 they refer to points that did not occur before in the text: " Group 2 is the group with average satisfaction for questions 1,3,4,5...."
Results displayed in the Table 1 should be shortly disscussed in the text
In the line 198 Authors mentioned about BMI but in further part of manuscript I didn't find information about BMI
Findings are interesting and important becasue as far as I know it is a first paper devoted the teachers' well-being during COVID-19 pandemic in Poland and one of the few in the world. However because the study group covered only one region (which the Authors emphasized in Limitations), they should not use the term Polish teachers in the text, because this term suggests that the results apply to the whole of Poland
Minor remarks
Disscussion
line 304-306 the content is repeated in the lines 306-308
Fig.1 - the meaning of the colors in the bottom line is not explained
Fig 2. illegible, difficult to understand. Explanation should be placed under the Figure not in Supplement
Table 6 This table is unclear. What it is "Importance" What is the maximum value of Importance, from this table we only know that "Work experience" (23,1) has higher importance than "Sex" (7.5) but we don't know if it has a big impact or a small one, we have no point of reference
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.