This is an engaging and relevant article that clearly identifies the effects of campus closure on student learning. Considering this is a very new/predominant topic, the author effectively provides a baseline knowledge of online learning resources, exams, and lectures. The challenges of online learning are demonstrated and its effect on student performance. However, the overall structural format of the methodology is confusing and the readability of the introduction could be improved. After revaluation and restructuring, this article would likely be accepted and published.

While the title is applicable to the study, the wording is unclear and misleading. Adding “Chemistry” to the title, but not including it in the abstract is confusing and allows for misinterpretation of the purpose. Overall, the title is more intention oriented and less focused on the general findings. The abstract faced many of the same issues in clarity. Additionally, there are grammatical errors and the overall structure of the abstract is misleading and confusing. It is structured in a way that jumps around between purpose, methods, explanations, and results. Adjusting this will give the writing a more readable flow that keeps the reader engaged. The references are all up to date and credible, however, there are a few irrelevant references that, while relating to chemistry, do not apply to the study at hand. The references should be tested by applying them to the study at hand and generally reevaluated for relevance.

The introduction provides a sufficient array of background knowledge that applies to the context of the study. The structure and arrangement of the information should be revised and rearranged for clarity. The purpose is outlined and identified adequately and in a local location. However, the methodology does not accurately represent the goals of this experiment which are outlined in the introduction. The scope of current understanding is accurate but should be elaborated upon to justify such a preliminary study.

The methodology is generally well-written and informative. There are several correctable shortcomings that limit the reader's knowledge and understanding. Firstly, the university and the number of students in the given study are not identified. Considering only one university is under examination, there may be stratified sampling bias. This can be corrected by repeating the study with another university or clarifying the limitations of this shortcoming in the discussion. Clear, adequate information about the questionnaire and means of data collection are included and reliable, making the study easily repeated in the future. However, all aspects of the study (weekly quizzes) are not introduced or explained. Finally, on pg 2496, figure 1 should not be included in the methods section and should be moved to the results.

The results illustrate the findings in a relevant and organized way that provides a deeper understanding of the purpose of the study. The categories are grouped appropriately and are arranged in a logical format that connects the figures to the text. However, some figures need revision to improve the clarity of results. For example on pg 2497, table 3 was difficult to interpret and connect to the text. This can be improved by relabeling the columns for clarity or possibly dividing the table into two separate tables. The text itself adds appropriate and relevant information to the results, however, it goes beyond the scope of a simple presentation of findings and almost mimics a discussion. Interpretation of the findings should not be included. Additionally, pg 2498, table 4 - live streams and recordings were relevant, but there is no physical 2019 data for comparison.

The discussion section answers the overall purpose and aims of the study. Logical conclusions are drawn and supported by the results and references. Considering Covid19 is an ongoing crisis, more can be added about future research and ongoing questions. Overall, the discussion effectively wraps up and supports the rest of the article.