Organizational Health Behavior Index (OHBI): A Tool for Measuring Organizational Health
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors:
Thank you for sending your article to the Sustainability journal. I'd like to make some suggestions that I hope will help improve the current paper. I´ll go by sections to better structure my review:
Abstract:
Please take care of the format. Also I think you could elaborate a little more on the results in this part. What have you achieved and why is this research important are two main questions that should be answered here.
Introduction:
I'd suggest not to structure introduction into different points. Generally, the introductions tend to be more brief and to be structured into three items: the state of the art and the gaps found, how your research contributes to them and what are you going to do. As well, I´d add a last paragraph about the structure of your work.
Finally, a theoretical framework is missed, which could be built with many of the things you have already in the introductory part.
Methodology
Some of the parts expressed in the results section should be included here. In addition, take care of the format problems (line 223). Regarding the content, I think some of your statements about the methodology followed and the importance of the quantitative and qualitative tools should be backed up with some references in the field.
Results:
This part is quite confusing to me. It'd benefit from a brief introduction where you situate the reader about what are you going to do. It is difficult to follow the different cases, methodologies, etc. I'd advise to introduce a table where you can summarize those aspects.
I'd also suggest to put some context before each table. So far it is a little to sudden to find the information without prior introduction. In the current state of the article, you apply a lot of methods but I fail to see what is the necessity for them as well as the implications of the results.
The organization of the results is confusing, it does not explain well the different phases followed and the connection within the studies. The presentation of the results in the current tables and graphs adds a lot of "noise" where it is complicated to know which are the important things.
Discussion:
In this part what I read was mostly a repetition of the results. It does not add any discussion itself to the article. I'd suggest to greatly change this part to add more substancial content.
Conclusions
Here you could focus more on the implications of the study. Although the theoretical implications are there, it should be connected with current research. As well, I'd suggest to enlarge the practical implications.
I hope it is helpful. Have a nice day!
English should be reviewed.
Author Response
REVIEW 1
Point 1 : Abstract:
Please take care of the format. Also, I think you could elaborate a little more on the results in this part. What have you achieved and why is this research important are two main questions that should be answered here.
Point 1 response. The reconsideration is given to the format of the Abstract and the result along with the methodologies are included.
Introduction:
I'd suggest not structuring the introduction into different points. Generally, the introductions tend to be briefer and be structured into three items: the state of the art and the gaps found, how your research contributes to them and what are you going to do. As well, I´d add a last paragraph about the structure of your work.
Finally, a theoretical framework is missed, which could be built with many of the things you have already in the introductory part.
Point 2 response. Alteration made as per the suggestions. The introduction is shortened and a research gap is added along with a paragraph that explains what this research could contribute to organizational health behavior research.
Methodology
Some of the parts expressed in the results section should be included here. In addition, take care of the format problems (line 223). Regarding the content, I think some of your statements about the methodology followed and the importance of the quantitative and qualitative tools should be backed up with some references in the field.
Point 3 response. A separate section for literature review is added.
Formatting done
Results:
This part is quite confusing to me. It'd benefit from a brief introduction where you situate the reader about what are you going to do. It is difficult to follow the different cases, methodologies, etc. I'd advise to introduce a table where you can summarize those aspects.
Point 4 response. Summary Table 1 of methodologies inserted.
I'd also suggest putting some context before each table. So far it is a little to sudden to find the information without prior introduction. In the current state of the article, you apply a lot of methods but I fail to see what is the necessity for them as well as the implications of the results.
Ans. Necessary updates are done, however, it is a tool development paper and calculation of psychometric properties, all the methods are important to ensure and provide the evidence that the tool meets the criteria of tool construction. However, it consisted of both qualitative and quantitative subscales that can be the reason it looks lengthy.
The organization of the results is confusing, it does not explain well the different phases followed and the connection within the studies. The presentation of the results in the current tables and graphs adds a lot of "noise" where it is complicated to know which are the important things.
Point 5 response. Summary Table 1 is inserted to develop insight into the results procedure. It is a tool development paper and calculation of psychometric properties, all the tables are important to ensure and provide the evidence for that.
Discussion:
In this part what I read was mostly a repetition of the results. It does not add any discussion itself to the article. I'd suggest to greatly change this part to add more substantial content.
Point 6 response. Updates are made as per recommendations.
Conclusions
Here you could focus more on the implications of the study. Although the theoretical implications are there, it should be connected with current research. As well, I'd suggest enlarging the practical implications.
Point 8 response. Practical implications added.
Reviewer 2 Report
Many thanks for the opportunity to read your article entitled “Organizational Health Behavior Index (OHBI): A tool for measuring Organizational Health”. I think that you are addressing a timely and relevant topic. However, after reading your research, I had some major concerns. I think that this article should be reconsidered by the editors after some major revisions. I will elaborate on my concerns below. This response letter is structured in line with the structure of your article. I hope that these comments will help you in improving the quality of your research.
1. Abstract is written a bit haphazardly and does not elaborate the findings clearly. It needs to be revised to be more readable, concise, and attractive.
2. I feel that the introduction is very short and misses several relevant elements. The authors do not position effectively their research in the extant scholarly debate. The authors should clearly position their paper in the scholarly literature, emphasizing how they are going to contribute to the scientific debate on the driving mechanism for Organization health behavior. Enhancing the positioning of the article should lead the authors to identifying the knowledge gaps affecting the scholarly debate. In the current form, it is not clear what is the area of scientific debate that the authors are going to address with their research. In the current version of the introduction, inadequate information is delivered to pinpoint the originality and the relevance of this research.
3. Literature review section is entirely missing. In addition, a convincing theoretical framework is not established. Authors have haven’t cited any relevant studies to establish the theoretical validity of their research, while the existing literature review lacks a global component and misses some key relevant studies. I am suggesting the following studies for authors to be incorporated in the literature review section:
doi: 10.3390/su14010256
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215473
4. The methods section is overly simplistic and authors have stressed on formulae which are very common knowledge. Please improve this part and provide appropriate methodological details.
5. The results are not clear enough. How exactly the authors have achieved the main objectives of the study. Please see doi: 10.3390/su14010256 for details.
6. The discussion section is entirely absent from the paper. Please include a comprehensive discussion section and compare your results with similar studies from around the world. You can also list the studies which have reported contradictory findings than those of yours.
7. The conclusion should summarize how the work advances the field from the present state of knowledge. The author should provide a clear scientific justification for this work in conclusion section and indicate uses and extensions if appropriate. The reference needs improvement. The geography of cited publications should also be widened.
8. Please acknowledge the limitations of your research and consider expanding on future research directions.
9. Format of the Tables and Equations in the Materials and Methods section is consistent.
10. Please double-check all references, both in-text and in the bibliography. Check that the reference format is consistent with the journal style and that all references are current. You can remove some dated references while remaining true to the classics.
Author Response
REVIEW 2
- Abstract is written a bit haphazardly and does not elaborate the findings clearly. It needs to be revised to be more readable, concise, and attractive.
Point 1 Response: Changes are made in the abstract as per the suggestions.
I feel that the introduction is very short and misses several relevant elements. The authors do not position effectively their research in the extant scholarly debate. The authors should clearly position their paper in the scholarly literature, emphasizing how they are going to contribute to the scientific debate on the driving mechanism for Organization health behavior. Enhancing the positioning of the article should lead the authors to identifying the knowledge gaps affecting the scholarly debate. In the current form, it is not clear what is the area of scientific debate that the authors are going to address with their research. In the current version of the introduction, inadequate information is delivered to pinpoint the originality and relevance of this research.
Point 2 Response: Introduction rewritten and gap of research, motivation, and scholarly debate added as per the suggestions
- Literature review section is entirely missing. In addition, a convincing theoretical framework is not established. Authors haven’t cited any relevant studies to establish the theoretical validity of their research, while the existing literature review lacks a global component and misses some key relevant studies. I am suggesting the following studies for authors to be incorporated in the literature review section:
doi: 10.3390/su14010256
https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215473
Point 3 Response: Literature Review section added as suggested
- The methods section is overly simplistic and the authors have stressed on formulae which are very common knowledge. Please improve this part and provide appropriate methodological details.
Point 4 Response: Changes made as per the suggestions.
The results are not clear enough. How exactly the authors have achieved the main objectives of the study. Please see doi: 10.3390/su14010256for details.
Point 5 Response: Methodology is updated
6. The discussion section is entirely absent from the paper. Please include a comprehensive discussion section and compare your results with similar studies from around the world. You can also list the studies which have reported contradictory findings than those of yours.
Point 6 Response: Discussion updated
7. The conclusion should summarize how the work advances the field from the present state of knowledge. The author should provide a clear scientific justification for this work in the conclusion section and indicate uses and extensions if appropriate. The reference needs improvement. The geography of cited publications should also be widened.
Point 7 Response: Conclusion updated
8. Please acknowledge the limitations of your research and consider expanding on future research directions.
Point 8 Response: changes done as per the suggestions
9. Format of the Tables and Equations in the Materials and Methods section is consistent.
Point 9 Response: changes done as per the suggestions
10. Please double-check all references, both in-text and in the bibliography. Check that the reference format is consistent with the journal style and that all references are current. You can remove some dated references while remaining true to the classics.
Point 10 Response: changes done as per the suggestions and the IEEE referencing style applied
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for your great efforts in preparing this research, but I have some concerns about it, namely:
Reformulating the abstract in a better way and showing the most important results of the study in it.
What is the contribution made in this research?
Expanding more on literary reviews and focusing more on the latest relevant references, in addition to explaining the theories that were relied upon in this study
The methodology is not clear and needs more details.
Where is the paragraph of developing the hypotheses of the study
Where are the theoretical and practical implications of this study?
Where are future studies?
You should update and add more references.
Author Response
Reformulating the abstract in a better way and showing the most important results of the study in it.
Point 1 Response: Abstract reformulated and results added.
What is the contribution made in this research?
Point 2 Response: Research contribution added.
Expanding more on literary reviews and focusing more on the latest relevant references, in addition to explaining the theories that were relied upon in this study
The methodology is not clear and needs more details.
Point 3 Response: Methodology updated as suggested.
Where is the paragraph on developing the hypotheses of the study
Point 4 Response: Hypothesis added as per the suggestion.
What are the theoretical and practical implications of this study?
Point 5 Response: Practical implications updated
Where are future studies?
Point 6 Response: Future work section added
You should update and add more references.
Point 7 Response: More references added.
Reviewer 4 Report
In my opinion, the topic of the paper presents a high level of interest, the article is overall well written and the conducted research has some significant value. However, a few issues should be considered before the article can be accepted for publication. I will start with the most important one, which has to do with the relation between the subject approached and the topics that are considered suitable for a journal such as Sustainability (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/about). From this point of view, the research is a little “narrow” and does not cover the required topics, as there is no connection with the sustainability principles and for this reason, it should be extended a little further.
In the Introduction section, the article should present a more extensive description of the research context and what unsolved problems motivate this study. Literature review should be more extensive. Authors are recommended to include more references and update the bibliography.
The proposed method should be compared with the other state-of-the-art methods to demonstrate the efficiency of your method. Please argue for the rationale for generalizing the proposed method within a given task.
The research scope must be defined clearly. Frequently, the objective behind these tasks is to compare different solutions for solving a predictive task.
Pay attention to the way of writing the work. Reference number 34 is missing from the bibliography. The size of the characters used is variable, the specific writing conditions of the magazine must be respected.
Also, it would good to have a future work section.
Author Response
In my opinion, the topic of the paper presents a high level of interest, the article is overall well written and the conducted research has some significant value. However, a few issues should be considered before the article can be accepted for publication. I will start with the most important one, which has to do with the relation between the subject approached and the topics that are considered suitable for a journal such as Sustainability (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/about). From this point of view, the research is a little “narrow” and does not cover the required topics, as there is no connection with the sustainability principles and for this reason, it should be extended a little further.
In the Introduction section, the article should present a more extensive description of the research context and what unsolved problems motivate this study. The literature review should be more extensive. Authors are recommended to include more references and update the bibliography.
Point 1 Response: Changes in the abstract and Introduction are made as per the suggestions.
Literature Review added in a separate section.
The proposed method should be compared with the other state-of-the-art methods to demonstrate the efficiency of your method. Please argue for the rationale for generalizing the proposed method within a given task.
Point 2 Response: Methodology is updated
The research scope must be defined clearly. Frequently, the objective behind these tasks is to compare different solutions for solving a predictive task.
Pay attention to the way of writing the work. Reference number 34 is missing from the bibliography. The size of the characters used is variable, the specific writing conditions of the magazine must be respected.
Also, it would good to have a future work section.
Point 3 Response: Changes in references are made and a section for future work added.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors:
Thank you for your revised version. Please find my comments below, again structured by sections:
Abstract.
It has improved although I'd suggest a couple of changes: 1- do not employ the term "huge" when referring to a sample; 2 - You could include a line with the practical implications.
Introduction:
I think this part still needs to improve. The structure it is not clear and the "structure paragraph" explaining what you are going to do is missing as I pointed out in my previous comment.
In my experience, an introduction should be shorter - 1000 words at least - estructured in 3-4 paragraph that explain the importance of the topic and the current state, the gaps found, the motivation for your research and your contribution. Although the gaps now have been added I still miss the motivation and the contribution.
In addition, please check the use of formal and informal discourse (for example, you use "your organization" several times).
Literature review:
In here, please check the numbering format. In addition, I would not advise to use so many subtopics but to integrate them all at once. In addition, please avoid the use of short paragraphs since they hinder the flow of the reading.
The hypothesis added does not have a previous clarification and just appears all of the sudden..
Methods:
This section has improved and I understand that you prefer to explain more in detail the methods used in the results section. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that you include a general overview of the methodology employed to improve the article.
Results:
The result section would benefit from an introductory paragraph explaining how the analysis will be performed - meaning the order of analysis, the reasons for that, etc. I repeat my previous comment about the need for more clarification of the implications of the results and not only the input of data. I understand that the methods need a lot of tables and figures but I'd suggest that some of them are erased or, at least, introduced in the text.
Conclusions:
I thank the authors for including the practical implications but I'd suggest that instead of doing it on bullet points shape, you develop a paragraph that increases the readability.
I hope these comments help to improve the article. Kind Regards.
As I said above, please check the person you are using.
Author Response
Abstract.
It has improved although I'd suggest a couple of changes: 1- do not employ the term "huge" when referring to a sample; 2 - You could include a line with the practical implications.
Point 1-” Huge” word removed and practical implication added.
Introduction:
I think this part still needs to improve. The structure is not clear and the "structure paragraph" explaining what you are going to do is missing as I pointed out in my previous comment.
Point 2-The implementations are made as per suggestion.
In my experience, an introduction should be shorter - 1000 words at least - estructured in 3-4 paragraph that explain the importance of the topic and the current state, the gaps found, the motivation for your research and your contribution. Although the gaps now have been added I still miss the motivation and the contribution.
Point 3-Motivation and Contribution added. The paragraphs are shortened and restructured as suggested.
In addition, please check the use of formal and informal discourse (for example, you use "your organization" several times).
Point 4-Your , You words are removed as suggested
Literature review:
In here, please check the numbering format. In addition, I would not advise to use so many subtopics but to integrate them all at once. In addition, please avoid the use of short paragraphs since they hinder the flow of the reading.
Point 5-Sequence and numbering format altered.Short paragraphs are altered to improve the flow of reading.
The hypothesis added does not have a previous clarification and just appears all of a sudden.
Point 6-A previous clarification added before hypothesis.
Methods:
This section has improved and I understand that you prefer to explain more in detail the methods used in the results section. Nevertheless, I'd suggest that you include a general overview of the methodology employed to improve the article.
Point 7-General overview of methodology added
Results:
The result section would benefit from an introductory paragraph explaining how the analysis will be performed - meaning the order of analysis, the reasons for that, etc. I repeat my previous comment about the need for more clarification of the implications of the results and not only the input of data. I understand that the methods need a lot of tables and figures but I'd suggest that some of them are erased or, at least, introduced in the text.
Point 8-Changes made
Conclusions:
I thank the authors for including the practical implications but I'd suggest that instead of doing it on bullet points shape, you develop a paragraph that increases the readability.
Point9-Bullet points converted to paragraphs as suggested.
Reviewer 3 Report
ok
Author Response
Thanks for the Feedback. Changes made
Reviewer 4 Report
The revision submission is much improved and reads better.
I congratulate the authors, they have made all the modifications and from my point of view have improved the quality of the article.
I recommend publishing.
Good luck in your future work.
Author Response
Thanks a lot for the feedback.
