How Person–Organization Fit Impacts Work Performance: Evidence from Researchers in Ten Countries during the COVID-19

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The researchers performed all the necessary changes:

- figure 5 as transformed into a scatterplot and it is now more comprehensible.

- table 6 was added some colors and readability was improved.

- limitations of the research are discussed extensibly.

 

Author Response

Response to comment:

Thank you very much for your suggestions. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in the revised paper.

We appreciate Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Paper 2463431 review to Sustainability – How Person-organization Fit Impacts Work Performance: Evidence from Researchers in Ten Countries during the COVID-19

General considerations

After re-analyzing the new version of the article in depth along with the author’s responses, I find that the authors have well implemented all the suggestions for improvement suggested in the previous review report.

Therefore, it is my opinion that the article will be ready to be published, after the authors have put in black all parts of the article that have font in other colors, and adapted the entire article according to the journal's template.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to comment:

Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have put in black all parts of the article that have font in other colors in addition to referencing the serial numbers of references, figures, and tables. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper.

We appreciate Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

 

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 purpose of this paper is to investigate how the COVID pandemic impacted the work of researchers in several countries. More specifically, issues like work performance, the allocation of organizational resources, organizational support are addressed. The topic is of extreme importance. 

The sample size is large enough and is fairly distributed by field of work and roles. A wide range of variables are discussed and considered. 

Suggestions for improvement:

- figure 5 may be transformed into a scatterplot

- for table 6 you could add colors for I, II, III, IV so that is more easy to read

- some research limitations should be added. 

Some phrases are too long making the paper difficult to read. Some examples below:

- lines 32-34

- lines 39-42

- lines 67-70

- lines 93-96

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject matter presented in the article concerns the problem already identified in the past. Its implications for the future are very limited. The title of the manuscript is clear and reflects the main topic of the study. The abstract gives an adequate picture of the entire article. Keywords are adequate to the issues presented in the article. The scientific purpose is clearly presented in the study. The structure of the manuscript is satisfactory. The research methods doesn't raise objections. The results are credible. The figures and tables present the content clearly.

5

I have no more additional comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to familiarize with your research results. The idea to analyse OR and PO fit among scientists during Covid is interesting and promising, however, the manuscript needs considerable improvement.

 

-        the manuscript is deficient in several critical academic components that are essential for scholarly research papers. For instance, the paper lacks a clear hypothesis formulation and justification, as well as an explicit data collection methodology. –

-        the abstract fails to provide sufficient information about the research, including the research methods employed and the results obtained; 

-        the introduction is full of assertions, but it remains unclear how the study's main concepts, such as PO fit and organisational resources, are related and why their relationship requires analysis;

-        the article suffers from a lack of clarity and coherence, making it challenging for the reader to understand the main purpose of the study. It is only in line 48 that the article's central idea becomes apparent, rendering the entire text (including the abstract) uninformative and confusing. The article would benefit from a restructuring of its content to ensure that the research objectives are clearly stated from the outset and that the article's flow is coherent and logically organized. This would help readers to engage more effectively with the study and understand its significance;

-        the introduction and research methodology of the paper fail to provide sufficient information about the study "Nature." There is no mention of whether it is a primary or secondary research study, which is a crucial piece of information that would help readers to understand the research methods employed and the reliability of the findings;

-        The theoretical framework presented does not align with the paper's title or research objectives, requiring clarification and revision.

-        Similarly, statistical model 3.3 does not reflect the study's title or research questions, and it is unclear why OR and PO fit are combined into a single element when they are treated as separate variables in the rest of the paper. The authors should provide a clear rationale for this decision and ensure consistency throughout the paper.

-        It remains unclear on what basis the 28 specific Organisational Resources and Personal Demands were grouped, requiring further explanation and justification.

-        The authors introduce an additional parameter, GDP, without clear justification or explanation, leading to confusion and a lack of clarity.

-        Although the authors claim to have used Amos for Path Analysis, it is unclear whether the model under study was statistically validated, and no supporting information is provided. The authors should provide adequate information of their statistical analysis and validation methods.

-        The citation numbering used throughout the paper is inconsistent, with some references using [xxxviii] and others using [14], casting doubt on the accuracy of the citation of references used.

-        The conclusions should be succinct and to the point, focusing on the main findings of the study only.

-        the authors attempt to cover too many aspects in one paper, and it is advisable to focus on a specific area of the study, such as the impact of career stage on the relationship between PO fit and work performance during the Covid period among scientists. This would result in a more focused and cohesive study.

 

In conclusion, the manuscript requires rewriting to address the highlighted issues and improve its overall academic quality.

The paper requires extensive academic language improvement, and simply editing the text will not suffice, as many sentences and paragraphs lack cohesion and coherence.

Reviewer 4 Report

Paper 2363816 review to Sustainability – How Person-organization Fit Impacts Work Performance: Evidence from Researchers in Ten Countries during the COVID-19

All the issues raised in this review can be considered to be minor reviews.

General considerations

The subject under study is very relevant and current. The article is well structured, the contents are very well explained and articulated with each other. The abstract lacks indication of the methods used to obtain the results presented, as well as the main limitations of the investigation and future work, so that the abstract becomes more consistent and appealing to readers. The literature review seems to be adequate. The discussion of the results is presented in a perceptible way. The conclusions are well pointed out, as well as the limitations of the investigation and future work. All the issues raised in this review can be considered to be minor reviews.

 

1.   Title, Abstract and Keywords

·         The title has key information, and it’s appealing to readers.

·         The abstract is well constructed and valuable. The main purpose of the study is presented. But: 1) the methods used in the investigation are not mentioned nor the fact that the authors have elaborated a model that is the core of the article; 2) in line 14, the first letters of the full meaning of the acronym PO must be capitalized; 3) the main conclusions are there, but there is no emphasis that they are the conclusions of the article, which the authors should emphasize...the way they are written they seem to be generic; and 4) the main limitations of the investigation and future work should also be indicated in summary form.

·         The keywords are adequate.

2.      Authors' names and affiliations

Everything seems to be correct with the numbering and the symbology used.

 

3.   Structure of the article

 

The structure of the article is well elaborated, since that the numbering of the sections is correct and their titles seem to be appropriate to the themes approached in each one of them.

4.      Figures, tables and equations

The numeration of the figures and tables is well elaborated. Subtitles are adequate and well formatted, but if some were not elaborated by the authors, they should be referenced.

5.      Grammar, spelling and syntax issues

The whole article it's well written in terms of grammar and spelling. But a little bit throughout the article, these aspects should be corrected: 1) the first letters of the full meaning of the each acronym, must be capitalized; 2) acronyms should only be accompanied by their full meaning only the first time they are used in the article.

6.      Semantic and technical issues

The entire article is very well explained. The issues are explained clearly and the concepts and ideas are very well articulated between themselves. The data collection method is explained clearly and objectively. The qualitative and quantitative analyzes are presented in a perceptible way. The conclusions are well supported by the results obtained and well-grounded in their discussion. Research limitations and future work are well indicated and explained.

7.      References

The list of references is well prepared, the number of references is appropriate to the depth of the theme's approach in the article. The references are strong in the scope of this investigation. But these aspects must be corrected:

·         In line 369, what is the meaning of the number 103442? Is it a part of a DOI code? Or is it a number of pages regarding the referred article (103-442)? This should be clarified, in case of being a mistake;

·         Throughout the article, the authors indicate the references in two ways simultaneously (with names or with numbers). And by the sequential numbering presented in the reference list, the article should be referenced only with numbers between square brackets;

·         In the list of references, the authors use the term "et al" a lot, which cannot be included there! Authors should review the entire list in order to eliminate this error if it was a lapse, or to place the names of all authors properly.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf