An Empirical Examination of Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning as Mediating Variables between HRM and Sustainable Organizational Performance
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Please, see the attached document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #1
Thank you for your comments and feedback. We do appreciate it. We substantially adopted your suggestions. Please see the attached file for the revision and responses.
Sincerely
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
The authors have substantially improved the article based on the recommended suggestions. I am fully satisfied with the revisions.
Author Response
We would like to sincerely thank reviewer #2 for his review and comments in the previous version of our manuscript, and for his satisfaction of our revision of the manuscript. We do really appreciate.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Thank you for resubmitting your research. The authors have improved the manuscript considerably and added mediation analysis, however, my fundamental questions are still not responded to. Please look into the following comments.
The article "An Empirical Examination of Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning as Mediating Variables between HRM and Sustainable Performance of Thai Construction Firms" aims to study the integrated roles of KM and OL in the established relationship between HRM and sustainable OP of Thai construction firms. However, looking at the constructs I am unable to understand how authors measured the sustainable performance while in the paper only organizational performance is discussed.
There are major technical issues with the paper. I am highlighting a few of them.
1. HRM was measured only on 4 items while in the literature review many of the concepts were discussed which were not taped by the scale.
similarly, for OP only three items were included and non of them is related to sustainability.
inappropriate questionnaire
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3
Thank you for your comments and feedback. We do appreciate it. We substantially adopted your suggestions. Please see the attached file for the revision and responses.
Sincerely,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Please, find the attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank Reviewer #1 for his comments and suggestions. We have addressed the issued raised by the reviewer in the revised version of the paper. Please see our correction in the letter of response and in the revised manuscript.
Thank you.
Sincerely.
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors have improved the article as per the reviewer's suggestions and I believe the article can be accepted for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for accepting our revision in the first round. We do appreciate your comments and feedback.
Sincerely,
Authors
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
I have seen some improvement.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article "An Empirical Examination of Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning as Mediating Variables between HRM and Sustainable Performance of Thai Construction Firms" aims to study the integrated roles of KM and OL in the established relationship between HRM and sustainable OP of Thai construction firms. However, looking at the constructs I am unable to understand how authors measured the sustainable performance while in the paper only organizational performance is discussed.
There are major technical issues with the paper. I am highlighting a few of them.
1. HRM was measured only on 4 items while in the literature review many of the concepts were discussed which were not taped by the scale.
similarly, for OP only three items were included and non of them is related to sustainability.
From title it looks like it is a mediation analysis however, the analysis section only provides the direct hypothesis testing
No mediation hypotheses were defined.
No mediation analysis
of inappropriate questionnaire
No hypothesis development.
Based on the above-mentioned reasons I believe the paper is not fit in the scope of the journal and also it has issues that need to be addressed before submitting to any journal. I believe this paper is not ready for submission yet.
Reviewer 2 Report
Title
- The title seems too long; authors can work on shortening it by removing redundant words. Consider this “An Empirical Examination of Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning as Mediating Variables between HRM and Sustainable Performance”
Abstract
- The abstract should include at least one limitation in the course of the study to show some of the challenges encountered by the researchers, the impact on the results and how they were overcome.
- The key words should be composed primarily of words not phrases. It may not be out of place to have a phrase but not to have all the key words as phrases. In effect, this is key phrases not key words. Make the correction.
Introduction
- Line 49 “The total amount of construction spending represented about 8% of the country’s GDP.” This sentence requires citation to validate the assertion by the authors.
- Line 66 “(e.g., in 2021, the company’s total revenue was $195,658 million).” This should be added before the citation [9] or if not part of it, its own citation should be added.
- Line 86 “There is a long-held belief….” The long-held view according to who? Authors should try and validate the view in the paragraph by providing the source.
- The problem statement is well articulated and the objectives of the study are clearly presented.
HRM, KM, and OL in Construction Industry
- Line 274 “…bear minimum...” correct the spelling; it should be “bare minimum.”
- Lines 294-295 “…according to the difference between expected and achieved outcomes…”, should we be talking about the “difference or differences.” Change to the most appropriate between the singular and plural form.
Conceptual Model
- The conceptual and structural models did not test any mediating variables in the study? Can the authors explain why?
Research method
- For Table 2 column for Theoretical support, the citations should be presented with only the numbers. There is no need to include the author names and year of publication.
Results
- An important characteristic of the demographic information missing from the data is the years of working experience for the respondents. It seems only two variables were tested in the demographic information, the gender and position, while a critical years of working experience was not. If this can be remedied, authors should try to include this.
- The other aspects of the presented results are in accordance with the stated objectives of the study. I am impressed by the authors submissions.
Discussion of findings
- The authors have presented their discussion well; however, the authors should include a few more studies from Scopus and Web of Science databases conducted in an international environment. Please consider citing the following studies.
Chaveesuk, S., Khalid, B., & Chaiyasoonthorn, W. (2020, June). Understanding Stakeholders Needs for Using Blockchain Based Smart Contracts in Construction Industry of Thailand: Extended TAM Framework. 2020 13th International Conference on Human System Interaction (HSI). https://doi.org/10.1109/hsi49210.2020.9142675
Khalid, B., Urbański, M., Kowalska-Sudyka, M., Wysłocka, E., & Piontek, B. (2021). Evaluating Consumers’ Adoption of Renewable Energy. Energies, 14(21), 7138. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14217138
Summary and Conclusion
- Line 683 “…KM and OL so as they can better adapt…” The construction should be changed to “…KM and OL so that they can better adapt…”
References
- The references section was prepared in an inconsistent manner. Only the first three references were prepared with the journal’s formatting. Authors should check the author guidelines from the journal’s webpage and make the corrections appropriately.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please, see the attached document
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Well done literature review, data collection. Wrong methodology.
The study collects data from 194 responses from 67 infrastructure construction firms.
By definition, it is a multilevel study when the variables measured are by the 194 individuals, refers to 67 firms.
Nothing in the methodology described is indicating that a multilevel analysis was conducted.
See examples in:
Eddleston, K. A., Otondo, R. F., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2008). Conflict, participative decision‐making, and generational ownership dispersion: A multilevel analysis. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(3), 456-484.
Andersén, J. (2017) What about the employees in entrepreneurial firms?: A multi-level analysis of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation, role ambiguity, and social support. International Small Business Journal, 35(8): 969-990 https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242617690797
Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorín, J. F., Tarí, J. J., Pereira-Moliner, J., & López-Gamero, M. D. (2021). The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 24(4), 355-371.
Gress, D. R., Kalafsky, R. V., & Bagchi-Sen, S. (2021). A Multi-Level Analysis of Innovative Korean SME Activity and Related Innovation Ecosystem. Asia Review, 11(3), 15-56.
Li, J. J., Kim, W. G., & Zhao, X. R. (2017). Multilevel model of management support and casino employee turnover intention. Tourism Management, 59, 193-204.
