Examining HRM Practices in Relation to the Retention and Commitment of Talented Employees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Explain the identification of the level of organizational commitment.
2. The diagram of the model does not contribute anything to the research (Figere 1). A diagram of relationships and dependencies should be presented. Please complete the data.
3. Describe the implemented processes, procedures, indicate strategies for retaining talented employees in the company (strategies / practices used: minimum and maximum). 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have tried our best to incorporate your recommendations. The revised manuscript has been uploaded to the system.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
The main goal of the analyzed study is to identify human capital management practices that have the greatest impact on the retention and commitment of talented employees.
2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?
The topic has been raised many times in the literature and does not introduce anything particularly new to the theory in this area. However, this does not mean that the article is worthless. Particular emphasis should be placed on organizing the issues of human resource management in the company and proposing quantitative analytical methods of the analyzed problem.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
As I mentioned above, the article introduces the organization of knowledge on human resource management and this aspect should be considered as the main added value
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?
The article is based on correct methodological assumptions supported by the use of adequate statistical methods allowing to verify the research hypotheses.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?
The conclusions are correctly formulated and result from the analyzes carried out. The research hypotheses were also properly verified.
6. Are the references appropriate?
The literature cited in the work corresponds to the current research status in the field of the discussed issues.
7. Please include any assitional comments on the tables and figures.
No critical remarks regarding tables and figures.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have tried our best to incorporate your recommendations. The revised manuscript has been uploaded to the system.

Best regards,

authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for giving me a chance to review the manuscript. I have read the manuscript thoroughly. The manuscript has discussed a very timely and highly influential topic “Talent management”. In order to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript I have following suggestions.

1. The introduction section of the manuscript is very short. The researcher(s) need to craft the introduction emphasizing on the purpose of this study. Why is this study important? What kind of limitations in the previous study, the current study address?
2. The manuscript which are published in Sustainability are usually discussing the sustainably of organizational resources; therefore, the researcher(s) should align this manuscript with the sustainability objectives in the introduction. Since, the researcher(s) discuss employees, therefore, the sustainable Human resource practices or Green Human resources can offer avenue to align the manuscript to the sustainable practices. The researcher(s) can get the insights from Ji and Jan (2020).
3. The second paragraph in the literature review (line no. 52-63) should be moved to the introduction. This is because; the researcher(s) are discussing the background of the HRM practices.
4. Hypotheses development of the study should be revisited. The researcher(s) have described the phenomenon instead of making a logical relationship between the variables.
5. The sampling technique of the study should be described in detail? Specifically, what was the sampling frame of the study? Which industry context the researcher(s) have focused?
6. The measurement items of the study are missing. The researcher(s) should add the measurement items with proper referencing.
7. Why did the researcher use exploratory factor analysis (EFA) via Principal component analysis (PCA). Why didn’t researcher use the scale of HRM practices from the previous literature? If there is no scale available in the literature, why didn’t the researcher use the standard scale development method?

Good luck!

Ji, S., & Jan, I. U. (2020). Antecedents and consequences of frontline employee’s trust-in-supervisor and trust-in-coworker. Sustainability, 12(2), 716.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have tried our best to incorporate your recommendations. The revised manuscript has been uploaded to the system.

Best regards,

authors

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I accept the amended article.

Author Response

Dear reviewer.

Thank you very much for you favorable review. Based on the recommendations of the second reviewer, we added some items into the manuscript. 

Best regards,

authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for efforts. The manuscript has improved a lot. However, I have following concerns and suggestions. Kindy check the manuscript again. 

1. The sampling technique of the study should be described in detail? Specifically, what was the sampling frame of the study? Which industry context the researcher(s) have focused?
2. The measurement items of the study are missing. The researcher(s) should add the measurement items with proper referencing.
3. Why did the researcher use exploratory factor analysis (EFA) via Principal component analysis (PCA). Why didn’t researcher use the scale of HRM practices from the previous literature? If there is no scale available in the literature, why didn’t the researcher use the standard scale development method?

Thank you and good luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thanks for the helpful comments we've tried our best to incorporate into revised manuscript which is in the Annex. For better clarity, the changes made are highlighted. The version we uploaded to the system is uncolored. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you again for the giving me a chance to review the manuscript. I have read the paper thoroughly. The researcher(s) have made significant improvements in manuscript during the review process. I do not see any further major concerns about this manuscript. A minor formatting checking and proofreading of the manuscript is recommended. 

Thank you 

Author Response

Dear editor,

thank you very much for your review. We appreciate your inspiring comments, which we will incorporate, i.e. we will do formatting checking and proofreading.

Regards,

authors