Importance of Employee Care in Corporate Social Responsibility: An AHP-Based Study from the Perspective of Corporate Commitment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

ABSTRACT

• The abstract should not have abbreviations.

 

INTRODUCTION

• The introduction should not be to have subsections.
• The Introduction should not have tables or figures, but should go in "Results".
• Subsection 2.3 and 2.4 should go in “Material and Methods”.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

• The tables do not appear ordered in the text.
• The authors have not specified the statistical analyzes performed.

 

Ethical considerations:

• Have you consulted the ethics committee? Authors must mention and say the reference.

 

RESULTS

• What has been the degree of heterogeneity in the results? Authors must specify it.

 

DISCUSSION

• There is no "Discussion" section. Authors should do this section.
• There are no study limitations.

 

CONCLUSIONS

• Authors should simplify the conclusions. They are very long.
• The “conclusions” do not have bibliographic references.

 

REFERENCES

• All bibliography is obsolete and some citations are incomplete. The bibliographic citations used
• Too many references do not meet the journal guidelines.
• There are references that have errors. Authors should review the citation.

Author Response

ABSTRACT

• The abstract should not have abbreviations.

The abstract has been modified

 INTRODUCTION

• The introduction should not be to have subsections.
• The Introduction should not have tables or figures, but should go in "Results".
• Subsection 2.3 and 2.4 should go in “Material and Methods”.

The above three points have been revised based on the reviewer's suggestion.

 MATERIALS AND METHODS

• The tables do not appear ordered in the text.

modified complete

• The authors have not specified the statistical analyzes performed.

Added narrative, inserted in conclusions with red font,(page 14 )

• Ethical considerations:

Have you consulted the ethics committee? Authors must mention and say the reference.

We've added narrative, inserted in methodology  with red font,(page 9), about the reference has been checked as well.

RESULTS

• What has been the degree of heterogeneity in the results? Authors must specify it.

We highlighted the heterogeneity in result, and also inserted in conclusions with red font,(page 14 )

 DISCUSSION

• There is no "Discussion" section. Authors should do this section.

Discussion has been justified (page 12)

• There are no study limitations.

Added narrative, inserted in study limitations  with red font,(page 14 )

CONCLUSIONS

• Authors should simplify the conclusions. They are very long.
• The “conclusions” do not have bibliographic references.

The above has been corrected 

REFERENCES

• All bibliography is obsolete and some citations are incomplete. The bibliographic citations used
• Too many references do not meet the journal guidelines.
• There are references that have errors. Authors should review the citation.

The format has been adjusted and newer references have been added

Reviewer 2 Report

I have two suggestions for improvement:

1. you suggest that you study commitment to CSR. There is a lot of literature on this subject. Could you please develop your literature review!
2. Discussions. I think that your analysis of your interviews is somewhat superficial. Can you please improve this analysis!

Author Response

1. you suggest that you study commitment to CSR. There is a lot of literature on this subject. Could you please develop your literature review!

We've added some more content and discussion concerning corporate commitment, also have inserted in  discussion& conclusions with red font,(see page 14 )

 

2. Discussions. I think that your analysis of your interviews is somewhat superficial. Can you please improve this analysis!

We've added more details concerning the method with red font,(page 14 )

Reviewer 3 Report

The article requires the following additions:

• in abstract it should be emphasized that the studies relate to HRM and the Autors should add basic conclusions from the research,
• theoretical introduction should expand the literature on the role of HRM in the concept of CSR,
• Authorities should be included among the stakeholders (p.4, point 5),
• a brief overwiev of research on a similar topic must be provided,
• The methodological part should cleary specify when the survey was conducted and which method was used to the respondent selectin.

Author Response

• in abstract it should be emphasized that the studies relate to HRM and the Autors should add basic conclusions from the research,

We've added narrative, inserted in the  abstract marked with red font(page 1)

• theoretical introduction should expand the literature on the role of HRM in the concept of CSR,

Authorities should be included among the stakeholders (p.4, point 5),a brief overview of research on a similar topic must be provided,

We've put more Literature Review and dialogue concerning the concept of stakeholders marked with red font,(page 3)

• The methodological part should cleary specify when the survey was conducted and which method was used to the respondent selectin.

We've rephrased the ideas of methodology, especially in  Materials and Methods with red font,(page 9 )

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, they have not corrected some errors and there are new ones. Please do the following:

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

• The authors have not specified the statistical analyzes performed.

 

Ethical considerations:

• Have you consulted the ethics committee? Authors must mention and say the reference.

 

DISCUSSION

• The authors have not used bibliographic references to make the discussion. That is wrong.

 

CONCLUSIONS

• Authors should simplify the conclusions. They are very long.
• The “conclusions” do not have bibliographic references.

Author Response

All the revised content is relevant to the reviewer's opinions including the way of statistical analyzing, ethical notice, and the rephrases for the conclusion.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article lacks information on how experts were selected, who interviewed and when.

Author Response

The article lacks information on how experts were selected, who interviewed and when

The information concerning the expert participants are adressed on page 10th with red front, 

 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

DISCUSSION

• The authors have not used bibliographic references to make the discussion. That is wrong.

Author Response

• The authors have not used bibliographic references to make the discussion. That is wrong.

We've already added the references which we dialogued with in the discussion part.