Work-From-Home Productivity and Job Satisfaction: A Double-Layered Moderated Mediation Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: Work from home productivity and job satisfaction: A double-layered moderated-mediation model.

 

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHORS

________________________________________________________________

Dear Author/s,

 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Sustainability.  It is an interesting read on a relevant topic, but there are a number of issues that require your attention before this paper can be published.  Some are minor and can easily be addressed, others require some further reflection and effort, as indicated below:

 

 

1.     Introduction

 

 

 Introduction

 

The introduction provides a brief background and sets the scene for what the reader might expect from this study. The authors outlined 3 research questions in the introduction.  These however, are not referred to in the discussion in any way.  Their use looks superfluous.  The research question and how the data collected helps to shed light on each one should be elaborated on in the discussion section.

Between lines 83 and 101 the authors refer to the findings of the study. This is not the best way where to introduce this area.

 

 

2.     Literature review

 

The way in which the paper is written indicates that the authors had a clear indication of the direction of the research from the outset. An element of bias can be felt throughout. There appear to be foregone conclusions throughout the paper.  This is so especially because of the brief and incomprehensive background provided.  The areas the authors chose to focus on in the build-up of the very brief and fragmented literature review are all in direct relation to the term they were describing. The paper lacks a critical outlook and is descriptive in nature. Evidence of engagement with the relevant literature is very limited. Moreover, the research gap is not clearly articulated in this paper.  It feels that this paper was conceived after that the data was collected.   Kindly articulate the research gap and clearly outline the contribution made through this study to academia.  The contribution to the literature other than the fact that the conceptual model used has not been explored before needs to be articulated in a better way.

 

Defining key terms and use of adequate supporting evidence is highly recommended while avoiding sweeping statements. Some claims are made throughout the document that appear to emerge from assumptions made by the researchers. Such claims could be supported by literature to make the paper more robust. 

 

Overall the literature review could benefit from better structuring and evidence of proper engagement with the relevant literature through the use of more supporting evidence.  The sections are highly fragmented and there is no build-up of an argument. The acronyms should be replaced with the full term used in the sub-headings.

 

 

3.     Methods

 

The sampling and selection criteria are not clearly outlined. It is suggested that the authors unpack this section and separate the different aspects that are currently intertwined (lines 389-409). Please add more details about these two elements outlining what the criteria for inclusion were in particular.  It is important to refer to the following issues which appear to be missing:

1.     Ethical considerations and ethics clearance obtained,

2.     Issues of anonymity/pseudonymization and how the author/s went about it

Measures. The author should list the various validated measures here.

 

The procedure of the ‘how’ the data was collected should be kept separate

 

4.     Discussion

 

The discussion section is weak.  Given that there is very little literature to refer to in the introduction/literature review, the emerging results could not be adequately compared to previous research.   Better use of references to substantiate the findings would make the article more robust.

 

 

 

 

General comments.

This paper starts off with a promising abstract. However, the reader is let down due to the lack of structure and academic rigor of the paper. There is lots of potential for improvement.

Firstly, the authors need to engage with the relevant literature and structure the introduction accordingly leading to the identification of a research gap and theoretical contribution.

 

The authors should use less colloquial language, and have the paper proof-read before resubmission

 

 

I hope that you will find the review useful to further develop your work.

Best wishes for further developing your paper.

Author Response

We prepared the responses to both the reviewers' comments in one file. We are attaching this.

In fact, we have incorporated all the suggestions from the reviewers. The constructive suggestions have helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript. 

We are thankful to both the reviewers and the Editor for giving us an opportunity of revising and resubmit the manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. I appreciate your efforts in the work put into this extensive research concerning work from home productivity and job satisfaction:

- The information is easy to navigate, and the graphic structure of the paper allows readers to analyze the concepts approached, providing an interesting insight of the topic.

- The paper is well written according to academic standards, using proper language and scientific style, although an English editing software would be appreciated as a minor spell check is required.

-  The literature review provides a good background of the topic.

- The authors bring relevant and interesting arguments.

- The findings and also the conclusions are in line with the results of the theoretical evidence. 

 

Although, to enhance the quality of the study, it would be wise to pay attention to several issues:

-          - The presented study is relatively voluminous (34 pages). Despite the very broad use of sources of information, it should be considered to make the study more compact, especially in the descriptive (theoretical) areas and table formatting, which will certainly allow better focus on the main objectives and results.

-          - Tables 4-8 need to be formatted according to the journal template and guidelines (for example: no inside borders are allowed). Also, some information in the tables could be regrouped for a better positioning within the page.

-         - The method of citation within the text is not the one recommended by MDPI. Please consult the MDPI guidelines to correct this aspect.

-         -  Authors are strongly recommended to do extensive editing of their revised draft (for example: there are many double spaces within the text; in lines 413-415 the correct expression for age groups should be “25 years old”, “25-30 years old” etc.).

 

Good luck with your revision!

Author Response

We have prepared responses to both the reviewers' comments in one file and we are attaching that so that the reviewers can see the answers.

We have incorporated the suggestions from both the reviewers. The suggestions helped us in improving the quality of the manuscript.

If we need to do anything more, please let us know. We shall be glad to make changes. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

thank you for making the requested changes.  I find the work has improved.  

Author Response

Comments from the reviewer (second round)

Dear Authors,

Thank you for making the requested changes.  I find the work has improved.  

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for giving us constructive suggestions in the first round of revision. We incorporated those suggestions in the manuscript, thus resulting in improving the quality of the manuscript. We are, however attaching the file of responses to the second round of revision. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx