Influence of Remote Work on the Work Stress of Workers in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author,
I have thoroughly reviewed your article "Influence of Remote Work on the Work Stress of Workers in the Context of the Covid-19 Pandemic." The topic is very interesting and important, but the paper as it stands requires further work before publication:
Research problem: There needs to be a clear statement regarding the existing knowledge gap in this field. It is essential to establish how this study contributes to the existing knowledge and how it differentiates from previous research. I think it would be a good idea to clarify the importance and originality of your research concerning prior publications.
Article selection process: Some aspects require more clarity. It would be helpful to provide additional information on the specific criteria used for article inclusion and exclusion and details about the methodology used for the content analysis. This will strengthen the validity and transparency of the systematic review process. It is also advisable to indicate whether a methodological quality assessment of the included studies was conducted. Although mentioned, there is no mention of it in the results.
Analysis of results: The findings still need to be presented more precisely and systematically. Currently, they are presented in two basic descriptive tables. I would suggest you organize the results differently to summarize the key findings from each article, highlighting the positive or negative effects and any significant relationships identified. This will allow for a more precise and concise understanding of the results. The content analysis process needs to be included.
Discussion and implications: The discussion section is insufficient and lacks a deep analysis of the results (which are also lacking). It would be beneficial to develop a more comprehensive discussion that analyzes the key findings in relation to previous studies and provides meaningful interpretations. It would also be appropriate to address the practical and theoretical implications of the findings and the study's limitations and areas for future research. This will enrich the contribution of your study to the field.
Self-plagiarism: It has been observed that some paragraphs in the paper have similarities with your own previously published work in Administrative Science. It is essential to make sure that all previous sources are cited and referenced correctly to avoid self-plagiarism issues. Remember to provide proper attribution to the original authors and differentiate your unique contribution to the study.
Overall, your article has potential, but significant improvements are required to strengthen its scientific contribution. As you address the suggestions mentioned above, you will be able to enhance the quality and impact of your research.
Thank you for being so willing to improve your work, and I am available to provide further guidance or answer any additional questions you may have.
Author Response
Greetings dear reviewer.
I attach the responses to the observations made.
Greetings
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The contribution is undoubtedly attention-grabbing and critical. The following are some pointers that may help increase the paper's quality.
In the literature review, it may also be functional to add a section devoted specifically to exploring work stress prevention strategies/actions.
In Materials and Methods, the initial section could be smoother in structuring and reading.
In the Search Procedures section, give more space to the keyword selection process.
In the Discussion section, more “critical work” of what emerged is needed. For example, I suggest organising the results into macro-categories and providing hypotheses for interpreting and connecting them.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Moderate editing of English language required
Author Response
Greetings dear reviewer.
I attach the responses to the observations made.
Greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Although the subject is interesting, the text contains a number of critical points both in form and in content which, in my opinion, do not allow publication in its current form. In the following list are those which are in my opinion the main critical points that should be overcome in order to consider the article for a publication in a scientific journal:
1. With regard to the structure of the article, since it is a scientific article dedicated to an expert audience a large part of the text seems to be addressed to an audience of students who do not know the basic concepts on the subject of the article. Examples of this are the long paragraph on the origin of distance work and the term stress and its meaning or the description of what is meant by systematic review and the disruption on Cochrane review or Prisma (bibliographical citation would have sufficed since it is a well-known and widespread research approach).
2. Despite the long digression and the explicit reference to the PRISMA statements, what is described in the text does not reflect the methodological approach cited: Only one reference date bank has been used, the description of the research strategy is limited, the analysis of the extracted citations is unclear (it is unclear how many researchers participate in the selection - 1, 2 or 3- and how any divergences are resolved). Part of the results are included in the methods and in any case the summary tables of the data are not clear and analytical (i.e no sample size and statistical measurements used are reported).
3. Overall the discussion is rather lacking, considering the fundamental role of this section in any scientific article, including systematic reviews. In fact, the discussion should represent the fundamental moment in which the main results should be reported critically trying to highlight the strength of each evidence. The discussion should also include a critical reflection on the strengths and limitations of the methodology adopted in the review and in general on the literature on the subject.
. 4. The conclusion, which also follows a poor discussion, is in my opinion inadequate. In general, this section should summarize the main findings in order to allow a generalization of the results and to provide guidance for future research and development activities.
Author Response
Greetings dear reviewer.
I attach the responses to the observations made.
Greetings
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author,
I hope this message finds you well. I recently had the opportunity to read again your study on the impact of remote work on work stress during the Covid-19 pandemic. I appreciate the significant work that went into this topic, which is both timely and important.
Your study undoubtedly contributes to our understanding of the subject, especially in light of the unique challenges that have arisen during the global health crisis. The examination of a multitude of factors affecting work stress in remote work settings provides valuable insights into a complex issue. However, after a thorough review of your research, I would like to highlight a few areas where potential improvements could strengthen your study even further, especially in the Discussion section.
Consideration of Individual Variability: While you mention numerous factors affecting work stress, it could be beneficial to delve into how these factors might affect different individuals based on their personal characteristics, such as personality traits, prior work experiences, and so on.
Causal Relationships Clarity: You mention several factors that could impact work stress, but a clear explanation of how and why these factors cause stress is not fully provided. For instance, you note that the organizational climate has a significant impact on work stress, but the explanation of how and why this happens is not clearly elucidated.
Methodology Transparency: While you mention that the review was based on a thorough assessment of the selected studies, the discussion does not provide sufficient detail on the criteria used to evaluate the quality of these studies. This is a crucial aspect of systematic reviews to ensure the included studies are of high quality and reliability.
Concrete Suggestions for Future Interventions: While your study mentions specific interventions, such as conducting yoga exercises to relieve stress in remote workers, the discussion does not provide clear suggestions or proposals for future interventions based on the findings of the review.
Diversity of Reviewed Publications: Though the Scopus database review is mentioned, it's unclear if other databases or literature sources were explored to gain a broader and more diverse perspective on the topic.
Addressing these points could make your valuable study even more robust and comprehensive. I hope you find these suggestions constructive and helpful for your current research or future studies on this important topic. I look forward to reading your future works and contributions to this field.
Sincerely,
Author Response
Saludos estimado crítico.
En el archivo adjunto puede encontrar la respuesta a las observaciones que hago.
Espero que las respuestas sean claras para que pueda dar el visto bueno para obtener la preciosa carta de aceptación.
Bendiciones
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Author,
I appreciate the review work done. I suggest just a minor review as concern presentation of data in the tables in order to help readers in comparing contents and results of the selected articles. In these sense, I suggest you to check table 6 and table 8. I think that dividing contents of the second column in more columns could improve readiness. For examples in table 8 content could be devided in technologies/population/outcome/results. Overall, these is just a generally suggestion that you could can consider or throw away.
Although the text as a whole is legible and understandable, I would recommend a final linguistic revision by the native speakers.
Author Response
Estimado revisor 3.
La Tabla 6 presenta claramente una lista de los autores y años de los artículos, seguido de los factores de trabajo remoto que influyen en el estrés laboral durante la pandemia de Covid-19. Esta presentación es más organizada y ayuda a los lectores a identificar rápidamente los factores analizados en cada estudio.
En el cuadro 8, la segunda columna se ha dividido en tres columnas: Muestra, Resultados y Efectos. Esta división permite mostrar de forma concisa la muestra de cada estudio, los resultados obtenidos y los efectos encontrados relacionados con el estrés laboral en el trabajo remoto. Esta presentación mejorada hace que la tabla sea más clara y fácil de entender para los lectores.
En general, el comentario del revisor 3 se abordó adecuadamente y hemos mejorado la presentación de las tablas siguiendo su sugerencia. Esto ayudará a mejorar la calidad del artículo y hará que los resultados sean más fáciles de entender para los lectores.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Accepted in present form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
We sincerely appreciate your detailed review of our article. We are pleased to hear that the paper has been accepted in its current form and appreciate your time and effort in evaluating our work.
Again, we sincerely appreciate your time and support in the review process. We hope that our article will be of interest and usefulness for the readers of the magazine.
Sincerely,
Roberto Carlos Davila Morán
