Network-Based Research on Organizational Resilience in Wuhan Thunder God Mountain Hospital Project during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to read the manuscript. It presents a clear explanation regarding the Network-based research on organizational resilience in Thunder God Mountain Hospital Project during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The manuscript is well written, and all parts are very well presented. Thus, it is my opinion that it should be published. To do it, I only have some improvement suggestions
- The authors could add to the title, or at least the abstract, the information of where is Thunder God Mountain Hospital. Because it was is Wuhan, the reader will be more informed of the need to construct the Hospital and the context.
- The authors could improve the relationship between the study and the journal's scope. Why should this study be published in Sustainability?
- I consider the flowcharts an excellent idea to resume all information and clarify the methodology, which is complex. Therefore, because the results are also complex and confusing, a similar flowchart of the main results could help the reader understand your work's main results.
- I would like the authors to justify better their decision to use content analysis of news reports. I understand their explanation not to use questionnaires and interviews. But using secondary data that may be not so impartial could add some bias. So the authors did not combine methods (content analysis of news plus interviews of key players/organizations) to minimize bias?
- The conclusions section is more than that. The authors also discuss the study implications, so I think this should be in the headline. Something like “Implications and General Conclusion”
Best Luck!
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Thank you for the opportunity to read the manuscript. It presents a clear explanation regarding the Network-based research on organizational resilience in Thunder God Mountain Hospital Project during the COVID-19 Pandemic. The manuscript is well written, and all parts are very well presented. Thus, it is my opinion that it should be published. To do it, I only have some improvement suggestions
R 1.1 The authors could add to the title, or at least the abstract, the information of where is Thunder God Mountain Hospital. Because it was in Wuhan, the reader will be more informed of the need to construct the Hospital and the context.
Thanks very much for the comment. The title now has been revised as “Network-based research on organizational resilience in Wuhan Thunder God Mountain Hospital Project during the COVID-19 Pandemic”.
R 1.2 The authors could improve the relationship between the study and the journal's scope. Why should this study be published in Sustainability?
Thanks very much for the suggestion. The topics of the journal include measuring and monitoring sustainability, which is of great relevance to the topic of this paper for several reasons. Firstly, the capacity of organizational resilience and organizational sustainability are dynamically interdependent, which means that the method of measuring organizational resilience can be used to measure organizational sustainability as well [1,2]. Four critical indicators presented in this paper can be used to measure the organizational resilience of construction projects in emergency situations, thereby providing a new perspective for measuring the sustainability of organizations in construction projects. Secondly, the organization collaboration network model developed in this paper explores factors affecting organizational resilience from the perspective of organizational collaboration and proposes specific recommendations for enhancing organizational resilience, which will provide practical guidance for enhancing the sustainability of construction projects. As suggested by the reviewers, the authors have also included these points in the section of introduction in line 48.
- Miceli, A.; Hagen, B.; Riccardi, M.P.; Sotti, F.; Settembre-Blundo, D. Thriving, Not Just Surviving in Changing Times: How Sustainability, Agility and Digitalization Intertwine with Organizational Resilience. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2052, doi:10.3390/su13042052.
- Corrales-Estrada, A.M.; Gómez-Santos, L.L.; Bernal-Torres, C.A.; Rodriguez-López, J.E. Sustainability and Resilience Organizational Capabilities to Enhance Business Continuity Management: A Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8196, doi:10.3390/su13158196.
R 1.3 I consider the flowcharts an excellent idea to resume all information and clarify the methodology, which is complex. Therefore, because the results are also complex and confusing, a similar flowchart of the main results could help the reader understand your work's main results.
According to the thoughtful suggestion from the reviewers, the author has developed a flowchart to express the results in lines 446-447, including each network parameter calculated and its correspondence with organizational resilience indicators.
R 1.4 I would like the authors to justify better their decision to use content analysis of news reports. I understand their explanation not to use questionnaires and interviews. But using secondary data that may be not so impartial could add some bias. So the authors did not combine methods (content analysis of news plus interviews of key players/organizations) to minimize bias?
Thanks very much for the comment. We agree with the reviewer that news coverage may add some bias due to its nature of secondary. However, considering the fact mentioned in lines 365-376, the method of questionnaire and interview may not be suitable for data collection in this context. Also, the following measures has been taken in this paper to minimize the bias in the news coverage: (1) In lines 381-385, news coverage selected for this paper were taken from official media and the official websites of key participants, thereby providing a more objective and realistic perspective of the construction process of the TGMH project.(2) In lines 385-386, the news collected in this paper covers the entire construction process of the TGMH project, providing sufficient information about the participants as well as their collaborations.(3) In lines 401-404, the information collected from the news coverage was analyzed through the brainstorming method, which included experts with working experience in the TGMH project, allowing for reduced bias in the obtained node and edge data. As suggested by the reviewer, the authors will combine multiple approaches to reduce the bias in data collection in the future research.
R 1.5 The conclusions section is more than that. The authors also discuss the study implications, so I think this should be in the headline. Something like “Implications and General Conclusion”
As suggested by the reviewer, the headline of the conclusions section has been revised as “Implications and General Conclusion”.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, I think the topic is interesting. However, there are some opportunities to improve your work, and I hope the following comments help in this:
11. Before each citation, leave a space between the text and the citation: text[1] (incorrect); text [2] (correct).
22. When you mention the objectives, use a semicolon (;) to separate them, not a dot (.). Also, objectives must be in form of verb, not subject. For example: (1) Identify the various participants…; (2) develop a multidimensional….; (3) analyze……
33. Not include Results in the section corresponding to Methodology. You mention the six indicators you obtained as Result.
44. What is the difference between the steps shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2? I suggest doing only one section oof steps. Steps shown in Figure 1 must be explained more detailly.
55. On Table 1, I suggest including a final row mentioning the Total of references for each indicator.
66. What you show in Table 1, is part of the Methodology or it is part of Results? I think it is part of the Results obtained from Step 1.
77. In section 3.2 (corresponding to Section 3. Methodology) you discuss four indicators (rapidity, diversity, clustering, and assortativeness). Is this discussion part of the Methodology? i.e., it explains how to develop the organizational resilience indicator system? I think this discussion can be placed in a section named Results and Discussion, once you have already determined the indicators.
88. It seems that section 4. The organization collaboration network of the TGMH project is part of the Methodology. If so, I suggest including it in section 3. Methodology.
99. Lines 442-447: Part of this paragraph is already written in lines 434-441. I suggest combining these paragraphs in only one.
110. Write Methodology in present tense, and Results in past tense (The average path length of the network was 1.851).
111. Lines 448-459: You mention that it can be possible to conclude…But this is not the Conclusions section, this is the Results section.
112. Line 499: In the text “Table 2. presents the node clustering coefficients…” delete the dot (.) after Table 2
113. Line 501: In the text “…coefficients of nodes (C5, C7, C8, and C6), ranging between 0.818.818 and 0.84,…” review and correct the values of the nodes.
114. Line 517: It is not clear what is the node WHPCC.
115. In Figure 3, the text box of Non-profit organization and the text (HFIC) are selected. Improve this figure removing that selection.
116. Line 534: What is the CN model? Explain more about it.
8
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear authors, I think the topic is interesting. However, there are some opportunities to improve your work, and I hope the following comments help in this:
R 2.1 Before each citation, leave a space between the text and the citation: text[1] (incorrect); text [2] (correct).
In according to the reviewer’s suggestion, we now have checked each citation and have left a space between the text and the citation.
R 2.2 When you mention the objectives, use a semicolon (;) to separate them, not a dot (.). Also, objectives must be in form of verb, not subject. For example: (1) Identify the various participants…; (2) develop a multidimensional….; (3) analyze……
Thanks for the reviewer’s comment, the objectives in lines 82-89 have been revised, including the use of semicolons to separate each objective and the use of verbs to illustrate the objectives.
R 2.3 Not include Results in the section corresponding to Methodology. You mention the six indicators you obtained as Result.
Thanks very much for pointing this out, and the whole manuscript has been revised and restructured as follows: (1) redesigned the research framework and provided corresponding explanations in lines 198-226; (2) Revised the content of Section 3.2 to Chapter 4 with the title of "Developing the organizational resilience indicator system" for the purpose of separating the results of the organizational resilience indicators from the section of Methodology.
R 2.4 What is the difference between the steps shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2? I suggest doing only one section of steps. Steps shown in Figure 1 must be explained more detailly.
The old Figure 1 displays the research framework of the paper, whereas the old Figure 2 illustrates the steps involved in determining the organizational resilience indicator system. In accordance with the suggestion of the reviewers, the old Figure 2 has been deleted and the steps in Figure 1 has been explained more detailly in lines 198-226.
R 2.5 On Table 1, I suggest including a final row mentioning the Total of references for each indicator.
In view of this valuable suggestion, the authors have summarized the overall profile of references, including the number of references for each organizational resilience metric and its corresponding complex network metrics in lines in Table 1.
R 2.6 What you show in Table 1, is part of the Methodology or it is part of Results? I think it is part of the Results obtained from Step 1.
Thanks very much for the suggestion. Table 1 illustrates the results of organizational resilience indicators and their corresponding network metrics after the steps of literature review and focus group. As suggested by the reviewer, the old section 3.2 including Table 1 has been restructured in section 4 ”Developing the organizational resilience indicator system”.
R 2.7 In section 3.2 (corresponding to Section 3. Methodology) you discuss four indicators (rapidity, diversity, clustering, and assortativeness). Is this discussion part of the Methodology? i.e., it explains how to develop the organizational resilience indicator system? I think this discussion can be placed in a section named Results and Discussion, once you have already determined the indicators.
As the reviewer has pointed out, the old section 3.2 contains the process of determining the organizational resilience indicator system and the results. Therefore, it does not belong to the discussion part of the Methodology. In accordance with the suggestion, the authors have restructured the old section 3.2 into the new section named “Developing the organizational resilience indicator system”, for the purpose of distinguishing it from the process of establishing the organization collaboration network of the TGMH project.
R 2.8 It seems that section 4. The organization collaboration network of the TGMH project is part of the Methodology. If so, I suggest including it in section 3. Methodology.
Thanks very much for the comment. The old section 4 ”Organization collaboration network of the TGMH project” illustrates the process of data collection and network modeling of the organization collaboration network of the TGMH project, which is a step in Methodology. Given that the old section 3.2 is restructured into the new section “Developing the organizational resilience indicator system”, the authors considered that it may be incoherent with the later sections if old section 4 is included into methodology. Therefore, the authors have added the section” Parametric analysis results” accordingly to the new section” Establishing the organization collaboration network of the TGMH project” to keep the logic and the coherence of the paper considering the adjustments in the front section.
R 2.9 Lines 442-447: Part of this paragraph is already written in lines 434-441. I suggest combining these paragraphs in only one.
Thanks very much for the suggestion. The similar sentences Lines 442-447 has been deleted and these paragraphs have been combined into one paragraph in lines 449-456.
R 2.10 Write Methodology in present tense, and Results in past tense (The average path length of the network was 1.851).
As suggested by the reviewer, the tense in Methodology has been modified to present tense and the tense in 5.3 Parameter analysis and results (old section: 5.3 Parameter analysis and results) has been modified to past tense.
R 2.11 Lines 448-459: You mention that it can be possible to conclude…But this is not the Conclusions section, this is the Results section.
In according to the reviewer’s suggestion, the statement expressing the conclusion of has been revised as the description of parameter analysis in lines 457-459.
R 2.12 Line 499: In the text “Table 2. presents the node clustering coefficients…” delete the dot (.) after Table 2
In view of the valuable suggestion, the authors have deleted the dot (.) after Table 2 in Line 509.
R 2.13 Line 501: In the text “…coefficients of nodes (C5, C7, C8, and C6), ranging between 0.818.818 and 0.84,…” review and correct the values of the nodes.
Thanks very much for pointing this out, and the authors have reviewed and corrected the clustering coefficients of nodes in Table 2 and in line 511.
R 2.14 Line 517: It is not clear what is the node WHPCC.
Thanks very much for the suggestion. The node WHPCC refers to the Wuhan Headquarters for Pandemic Prevention and Control, and the authors have explained the abbreviation in line 482.
R 2.15 In Figure 3, the text box of Non-profit organization and the text (HFIC) are selected. Improve this figure removing that selection.
As suggested by the reviewer, the authors have modified the picture by removing that selection.
R 2.16 Line 534: What is the CN model? Explain more about it.
The CN model is the abbreviation the organization collaboration network model of the TGMH project constructed in Chapter 5. As suggested by the reviewer, the authors have explained the network model in line 573.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for attending my comments.
