Working from Home, Telework, Equality and the Right to Privacy: A Study in Kazakhstan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Thank you for your work and manuscript.
Please find my general comments here and the specific comments further down.
- The aim of the study is not clear to the reader. Is this about norms or in/effective regulation? Or organization of remote work? Or comparing countries? Or provide an overview of the legal regulation of telework in K. (L73)or assess the existing legislatin (p.14 – L601) Please see detailed comments
- Why is there a need for regulation?
- And from which perspective? The paper has a very general tone and it is not clear if this takes a employee, manager or employer perspective.
- The paper’s motive is based on opinions, it seems. Please clarify the relevance and need of the study backed up by references.
- References are needed throughout the paper to back up the statements. It is not possible for other researchers to conduct a similar study in other national settings.
-
Detailed comments
L.7 – 8. Suggest to move up line 9-12 before 7-8. There is something about the logic in the abstract.
L12 – the aim is to study the norms, but in line 16-17 speaks about effective regulation meaning that the study is about in/effective regulation and how this can be improved.
L-27 - please explain to the reader why there is a need for new approaches to the legal regulation of social life? What is the problem that needs to be regulated?
L33 – a reference is needed to back up the statement ending with “position”. And also a reference backing up the sentence that ends in L34.
L38 – Potting or putting?
L45 – a reference is needed – ending the sentence – to achieve a life balance.
L45- 49 – long sentence. + a reference is needed. The first paragraph of p.2 needs references.
L55- -is this the opinion of the authors, if so, this should be clear to the reader. (Legal norms are one-sided)
L57-61. State if this the opinion/viewpoint of the authors, if it can be backed up by a referemce or if it is the aim to explore if there are systematic solutions or not.
L62 – why is regulation needed and not just a discussion about good practice?
L68 - if rights is the concern of this paper – then the focus of the paper should be: which rights are violated and how can they be supported/balanced? In its current form it focuses on norms.
L65- 71 – the purpose is twofold and runs over several lines. Please simplify the sentences to make it easier to follow.
L65: is there a problem with efficiency and flexibility?
L68-71: How will you assess inviolability and confidentiality, equal treatment?
L69 – make sure you reply to the second purpose – proposing solutions /other mechanisms considering labor law and the components. But also what the authors state in line 64. In its current form the paper makes a lot of promises.
L72 – 74: now the paper focuses on overview of legal reg. and impact on the confidentiality of parties and equality.
L76: if there is a need for the global community to understand the legal policy of K, then this should be listed in the beginning of the paper. But is this novel? And it reads like the focus shift again and now also include the concern for processes in other countries.
L80: is there a problem with confidentiality and equality? It reads between the lines, but is not supported with examples or references.
L81:how many organizations?
L83: are there examples of violations in the privacy? Then examples and references/stats are needed to understand the focus of the study.
L93-95: references are needed to support the statements in this paragraph.
L96: the aim is repeated but slightly different.
L97: how can the authors measure if norms available in the national laws are effective? Doesn’t that depend on the actor/the perspective/viewpoint? When can something be considered effective?
L98: Examples are needed of unequal treatment and violation
Literature review: When reading this, I am not sure why I need to know this.
L-98-99: Repetition
L112: “international studies” Which topics do they address? That is not clear.
L116 -117: different terms are used. Remote and distance/distant. Please align terms applied
L 116 – 122: This section seems to belong in the methods section.
L 133 – 145: What is the message in this paragraph? This is not quite clear. Please revisit and clarify the
L138 – 139: this sentence is difficult to understand. Please clarify the meaning.
L148: please add references that describes this approach
L152: Which search terms or search string was used? Please describe this in more detail.
L 153: What is the connection between Kazakhstan’s research and the approach to research?
L160 – please add a reference to the methods of legal linguistics
L180 which survey?Where do the questions come from? Please add references to the scales and measures.
L180 – is it a survey or study?
L 184: please explain how you evaluate the survey’s results using a Qual method to confirm the hypothesis. And what are these hypothesis? Typicially a hypothesis connects to a quan study/survey.
L193: add a ref after the quota samling.
L194: the time period – which?
L195: What is meant by Quotas? Please explain.
L199: the first selected group – group of what?
L200: 65 employees? From all the listed organizations? (L186-192) – how many were invited to participate? What is the response rate?
L215-18: please add a reference
L 222: is that 89.8% of the 65 people?
Figure 1 – what is the connection to re-imbursement? In the text about people work from home because the state of emergency…
Table 1 – where do the criteria – 1st column come from –how are they derived?
Page 7-8 – Why are the paragraphs numbered? What does that refer to?
From the text it reads that the survey has asked about the employers and the role of equipmet and resources and safety. This needs to be explained in the methods section. And also about reimbursement.
Table 2 – what is the link between the topics in this table and the overall aim of the study?
Since I find that the message and focus of the paper is not clear and also the methodology. I find it difficult to follow the line of thought and strength of the discussion (page 8-14. It is almost like a narrative and not a discussion of the results and findings.
Conclusions: page 14
The conclusions are numbered? Is this the style of the journal?
How do the 4 statements /claim connect with the findings on 5-8?
Author Response
Please see the attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
the text is of high quality and interesting. Especially because you are focusing on the situation and legal frame of a specific context (Kazakhstan).
The only aspect that is weak and could be improved, is to include some more resources on negative aspects of distant/home/hybrid work from a socio-economic perspective.
I think they would also contribute to your recommendations and conclusions. Look for example into Kohont and Ignjatovićs` work "Organizational Support of Working from Home" in Sustainability and the table on Advantages and disadvantages of Working from home in it.
Wishing you a lot of success in your work!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors. Thank you for the revised paper, and apologies for the delay in my reply. I find the paper to be improved, however, I still have a few comments.
First, I am uncertain about the layout of the methodology section. I find it strange that the sections are numbered instead of using plain text and subheadlines.
Second, I find that the procedures are still unclear, and it would be difficult for others to reproduce the study by reading the article- But I think this could be remedied if you invest more time in the description.
Third, there is something about references. For example, you use a reference on p.5 regarding non-probability quota sampling related to cardiovascular sciences. I believe it would make more sense to use a reference within the field of the paper.
Then, the paper needs proofreading. There are several small language glitches during the paper. I suggest getting a professional proofreader to comment on and correct your work. An example is Scribendi.
In the section following Table 1 (Results), you number the sections again. I believe it would be better to use subtitles. That would also inform the reader about the content of the paragraph/section.
Finally, the discussion section would also benefit from having more subtitles instead of "general findings" and "policy recommendation."
In sum, I recommend major revision as it is not possible to recommend minor revision without accepting it. I don't find it to be in a state where I think it can be published in its current version.
Good luck with the revising process.
Best regards, your Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors
Best wishes for 2023
Thank you for your revised manuscript.
I have read your paper again and find it to be much improved as it is much easier to follow your work and line of thought. I also find that all my comments and questions have been appropriately answered.
I therefore recommend the paper to be published.
Best regards, the reviewer
From
