Increasing Income Generation: The Role of Staff Participation and Awareness
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you so much for the opportunity to read this paper. The topic is pretty interesting and contemporary. The study examines empirical evidence of factors influencing university income-generating performance. Then, this study presents the direct and indirect effects of staff awareness, staff participation, and top management support on income-generating performance. The work is within the journal's scope; however, the following points are the concerns.
Abstract:
The abstract seems well written. But please add 1 or 2 lines mentioning the research design.
Introduction:
· The introduction section is not well documented. The literature gaps are very shallow. The study lacks an explanation of the existing knowledge, and to what extent things are known and unknown.
· The problem statement is insignificant to be able to attract the readers initially.
· Please summarize the contribution of the study and mention the objective of the study.
· Please include the structure of the study.
Literature review:
· You mentioned the Institutional Theory. But how this theory is relevant in taking contracts in the model?
· The hypothesis development section is very poorly written. Please rewrite your hypothesis development section with more arguments and with the latest references.
Methodology:
· Please add a reference to the Slovin formula.
· In which survey selection method you collected your data is missing. Is it probability or non-probability methods? Mention in detail.
· How did you manage the non-response bias in case of the online survey should be added?
· Why did you use PLS-SEM? Please write about it.
Result:
· Please add a table of descriptive studies for getting general characteristics.
· Please edit Table 1 so that it fits well. It is too long. Otherwise, you can transfer the detailed questions to the appendix section.
· Please include the HTMT calculation for discriminant validity.
· Please edit Table 2. No need to write the correlations on both sides of the table. Please follow the other articles in this regard.
· How did you address the common method bias?
Conclusion, implication:
· The study is of serious concern with the implication part. There is nothing written about how this study contributes in terms of
o Theoretical Implication
o Managerial Implication
o Policy Implication
· Limitations should be extended a bit more.
Reference:
· Please update your reference with the latest literature.
Based on the above observation, I recommend a major revision.
I hope this comment will not discourage you and will improve in a corrected submission. Wish you all the best!!
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on my paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Please see the attachment about a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and concerns.
Point 1: Abstract: The abstract seems well written. But please add 1 or 2 lines mentioning the research design.
Response 1: We have revised it. We have added 1 line about research design. Following the additional sentence (we use yellow to highlight the statement). “This research used a quantitative quantitative approach utilizing Structural Equation Model with WarpPLS”.
Point 2: Introduction: The introduction section is not well documented. The literature gaps are very shallow. The study lacks an explanation of the existing knowledge, and to what extent things are known and unknown. The problem statement is insignificant to be able to attract the readers initially. Please summarize the contribution of the study and mention the objective of the study. Please include the structure of the study.
Response 2: We have revised it. We have added the literature that can support our study. We also add the additional information about PTNBH with its regulation, so that the problem statement can be more significant.
Poin 3: Literature review: You mentioned the Institutional Theory. But how this theory is relevant in taking contracts in the model? The hypothesis development section is very poorly written. Please rewrite your hypothesis development section with more arguments and with the latest references.
Response 3: We have revised it. We also rewrite the hypothesids development with the latest references.
Point 4: Methodology: Please add a reference to the Slovin formula. In which survey selection method you collected your data is missing. Is it probability or non-probability methods? Mention in detail. How did you manage the non-response bias in case of the online survey should be added? Why did you use PLS-SEM? Please write about it.
Response 4: We have revised it. We have added the reference about Slovin Formula and the formula to calculate the sample in our study. Besides, the number of samples obtained is 111 with a degree of the leniency of 5%. The reason why we use PLS-SEM have added in the data collection and analysis methods section. We use green to highlight the explanation.
Point 5: Result: Please add a table of descriptive studies for getting general characteristics. Please edit Table 1 so that it fits well. It is too long. Otherwise, you can transfer the detailed questions to the appendix section. Please include the HTMT calculation for discriminant validity. Please edit Table 2. No need to write the correlations on both sides of the table. Please follow the other articles in this regard. How did you address the common method bias?
Response 5: We have revised it. We have edited the table 1 and transfer the detail information about the variable’s construct to the appendix section. We have added the HTMT table in the Table 3.
Point 6: Conclusion, implication: The study is of serious concern with the implication part. There is nothing written about how this study contributes in terms of, Theoretical Implication, Managerial Implication, and Policy Implication. Limitations should be extended a bit more.
Response 6: We have revised it. In the conclusion section, we add 3 paragraphs to explain the implication part about theoretical implication, managerial inplication, and policy implication (we use green highlight for the revision). We also have added the limitation of our study in the end of conclusion section.
Point 7: Reference: Please update your reference with the latest literature.
Response 7: We have updated our references with the latest literature.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript can be improved on the followings:
i. Outdated references were used in discussing issues, problem formulation and literature review that led to hypotheses development. The latest (three years) references should be included. Gaps of research were not identified. Thus, the study's novelty is hard to be identified. It is more like a replication study.
ii. The write-up of the literature was more on the format of the literature survey instead of the literature review. Issues were not critically discussed, argued over, and concluded to propose new insights on what to be done. The arguments were moderately built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or ideas but more on a replication study.
iii. Concerning the study's population (the unit leader and the person in charge of income-generating activities), more justification should be provided as to whether these two categories are the same (as the study used simple random sampling instead of stratified random sampling).
Author Response
We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on my paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Please see the attachment about the point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and concerns. Thank you.
Point 1: Outdated references were used in discussing issues, problem formulation and literature review that led to hypotheses development. The latest (three years) references should be included. Gaps of research were not identified. Thus, the study's novelty is hard to be identified. It is more like a replication study.
Response 1: We have revised it. In the introduction section, we have added the latest references especially the latest three year references. We use gree colour to highlight the additional references. Next, for the novelty of our study, we try to explain that the staff awareness variable, which is the moderating variable. Staff awareness is a driver of policy success and income-generating performance. The study comprehensively explains the interrelationships among those variables. Not only that, we also add some information about PTNBH condition in Universitas Negeri Semarang (in the introduction section).
Point 2: The write-up of the literature was more on the format of the literature survey instead of the literature review. Issues were not critically discussed, argued over, and concluded to propose new insights on what to be done. The arguments were moderately built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or ideas but more on a replication study.
Response 2: We have revised it. We rewrite the literature section, so that the issue were critically discussed.
Poin 3: Concerning the study's population (the unit leader and the person in charge of income-generating activities), more justification should be provided as to whether these two categories are the same (as the study used simple random sampling instead of stratified random sampling).
Response 3: We have revised it. The study’s popoulation is the staff in charge of activities that generate income. The staff is a person in charge if income generating activities in the Universitas Negeri Semarang.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you so much for the efforts and changes in the manuscript. However, still there are some observations:
1. Fornel Larker and HTMT tables are differently presented. Please follow standard format.
2. Theoritical and managerial implications are still inadequate. Please revise on more time. For managerial implications, you can use some of the suggestion you put in the discussion section.
Wish you all the best.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled "Increasing The Income Generating: The Role of Staff Participation and Awareness". We are grateful to the reviewers for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Besides, we would to inform you that we have used the services of certified academic professionals to proofread our manuscripts. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and concerns.
Point 1: Fornell-Larcker and HTMT tables are differently presented. Please follow standard format.
Response 1: We have revised it. Please check on the Table 2 and 3.
Point 2: Theoritical and managerial implications are still inadequate. Please revise on more time. For managerial implications, you can use some of the suggestion you put in the discussion section.
Response 2: We have revised it.
We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Amir Mahmud
Reviewer 2 Report
Prior to publication, I would advise improving the content with standard professional academic writing and avoiding repetition, unprofessionalism, nonfactual information, jargon, and passive writing. The paper requires professional native English language editing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled "Increasing The Income Generating: The Role of Staff Participation and Awareness". We are grateful to the reviewers for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript. Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers' comments and concerns.
Point 1: Prior to publication, I would advise improving the content with standard professional academic writing and avoiding repetition, unprofessionalism, nonfactual information, jargon, and passive writing. The paper requires professional native English language editing.
Response 1: we have used the services of certified academic professionals to proofread our manuscripts.
We look forward to hearing from you in due time regarding our submission and to respond to any further questions and comments you may have.
Sincerely,
Amir Mahmud
