The Influence of Socio-Demographic Factors on Management Concerning Corporate Culture in the Forest and Wood-Processing Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors    

The study provides an interesting, novel perspective on the forest-based sector. There are a few issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be published in Forests.

The disposition of the paper needs to be improved, as it is now, it confuses the reader. Hence, parts of the Material and Methods section, i.e., lines 134-155, actually constitute a literature review providing a background to the study. Further, lines 134-137 and 152-155 state the aim of the paper in a much more concrete, better way than the current one expressed in lines 123-126. Consequently, the text contained in lines 134-155 should be moved to the introduction. In particular, the text in lines 134-137 and 152-155 should be merged with the text in lines 123-126 to state the aim of the paper.

The actual description of materials and methods is too scant. It is not clear how respondents were selected, and which type of forest-based businesses (logging firms, sawmills, wood-based panels manufacturers, pulp & paper mills, etc.) were included, and the number of and character of respondents per type of business. Further, how were the results obtained, were questionnaires or interviews used, if so, which type of questions were used?

As for results, it is not clear what the averages in Tables 2 and 8 represents, in general the tables require further explanation. Just as a general note, it would have been interesting to see whether there are differences between different types of forest-based businesses.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The study provides an interesting, novel perspective on the forest-based sector. There are a few issues that need to be addressed before the paper can be published in Forests.

The disposition of the paper needs to be improved, as it is now, it confuses the reader. Hence, parts of the Material and Methods section, i.e., lines 134-155, actually constitute a literature review providing a background to the study. Further, lines 134-137 and 152-155 state the aim of the paper in a much more concrete, better way than the current one expressed in lines 123-126. Consequently, the text contained in lines 134-155 should be moved to the introduction. In particular, the text in lines 134-137 and 152-155 should be merged with the text in lines 123-126 to state the aim of the paper.

Thank you for the recommendations. They were accepted and incorporated to the text together with the recommendations of other reviewers. Text was moved and merged according to the recommendations. Changes provided are highlighted.

 

The actual description of materials and methods is too scant. It is not clear how respondents were selected, and which type of forest-based businesses (logging firms, sawmills, wood-based panels manufacturers, pulp & paper mills, etc.) were included, and the number of and character of respondents per type of business. Further, how were the results obtained, were questionnaires or interviews used, if so, which type of questions were used?

Recommendation was accepted and Materials and Methods were extended. Informations were  added.

 

As for results, it is not clear what the averages in Tables 2 and 8 represents, in general the tables require further explanation. Just as a general note, it would have been interesting to see whether there are differences between different types of forest-based businesses.

The further explanations of results presented in Tables 2 and 8 were added.

Thank you for good research idea regarding the differences between different types of forest-based businesses. Thank you very much, indeed. It is a good idea for future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Forests

Management in Forest and Wood-processing Sector

This paper investigates corporate culture within Slovakia's forest and wood-processing industry. The study focuses on identifying the existing and preferred corporate cultures and examining whether socio-demographic factors (such as gender, age, education, seniority, and working category) influence management's approach to corporate culture. Using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) methodology, the research reveals that hierarchy and clan cultures are dominant in the sector. The hierarchy culture emphasizes order, regulations, and stability, while the clan culture fosters a family-like work environment centered around teamwork and employee engagement. The study concludes that socio-demographic characteristics influence perceptions of corporate culture, with differences emerging in management's approach based on factors like age and education. The research highlights the need for managers to adapt their approaches to align with employees' personal characteristics to foster a supportive and effective corporate culture for long-term success and sustainability.

 

I enjoyed the paper, but it definitely needs some rewriting. For starters, the Introduction would benefit from a stronger first paragraph that clearly lays out the objective and grabs the reader’s attention right away. It should define the problem or knowledge gap and explain why the research is important in a bigger context. To make the paper clearer and easier to read, the language should be simplified and the sentences tightened up. For example, the abstract could be more concise by focusing on the main goals without repeating things. The introduction could be smoothed out to better engage the reader, and the results and discussion should trim unnecessary words to highlight the key findings. Lastly, the conclusion could be more direct, summarizing the main corporate cultures in a straightforward way. Overall, cutting down on jargon, avoiding repetition, and improving the flow between sections will really improve the paper’s presentation.

 

I found the methodology section a bit confusing. It’s not clear what parts are original to the author and what’s sourced from elsewhere, which can make things unclear for the reader. This section really needs to separate what the author contributed—like the data, experiments, or analysis—from the methods or materials they used from other sources. A clear and well-structured methods section is key to making sure the research is transparent and can be replicated. If it's not clear what’s new or borrowed, it can weaken the overall impact of the study.

 

Also, if the results section isn’t clear, especially with how the stats are reported, it makes it tough for readers to really grasp the findings. Clear and straightforward reporting of the stats is key for people to understand the significance of the results. When the stats aren’t easy to follow, it can take away from the impact of the study. Cleaning up this section will help get the findings across much better.

 

Tables should avoid using colored fonts. Instead, opt for italics.

 

The main issue with the paper is the clarity and presentation of the data, especially in the methodology and results sections, which are really important for understanding and replicating the study. There's some confusion between what the author did and what was taken from other sources in the methodology, and the way the statistics are reported in the results could be clearer. This affects how transparent and impactful the study comes across. To address these issues, the methodology should clearly separate the author's original contributions from what was sourced from existing work, labeling what’s original and what’s borrowed, with some explanation of why certain methods were used. The statistical reporting in the results section should be made easier to follow, using consistent terminology and including key details like p-values and confidence intervals. Brief explanations of key statistical concepts could also help make the data more understandable. Lastly, reorganizing the sections for better flow and readability by using headings and subheadings where necessary will ensure everything is presented logically and smoothly. These changes would make the paper much clearer and more effective without requiring a complete rewrite.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Forests

 

Management in Forest and Wood-processing Sector

 

This paper investigates corporate culture within Slovakia's forest and wood-processing industry. The study focuses on identifying the existing and preferred corporate cultures and examining whether socio-demographic factors (such as gender, age, education, seniority, and working category) influence management's approach to corporate culture. Using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) methodology, the research reveals that hierarchy and clan cultures are dominant in the sector. The hierarchy culture emphasizes order, regulations, and stability, while the clan culture fosters a family-like work environment centered around teamwork and employee engagement. The study concludes that socio-demographic characteristics influence perceptions of corporate culture, with differences emerging in management's approach based on factors like age and education. The research highlights the need for managers to adapt their approaches to align with employees' personal characteristics to foster a supportive and effective corporate culture for long-term success and sustainability.

 

I enjoyed the paper, but it definitely needs some rewriting. For starters, the Introduction would benefit from a stronger first paragraph that clearly lays out the objective and grabs the reader’s attention right away. It should define the problem or knowledge gap and explain why the research is important in a bigger context. To make the paper clearer and easier to read, the language should be simplified and the sentences tightened up. For example, the abstract could be more concise by focusing on the main goals without repeating things. The introduction could be smoothed out to better engage the reader, and the results and discussion should trim unnecessary words to highlight the key findings. Lastly, the conclusion could be more direct, summarizing the main corporate cultures in a straightforward way. Overall, cutting down on jargon, avoiding repetition, and improving the flow between sections will really improve the paper’s presentation.

 

I found the methodology section a bit confusing. It’s not clear what parts are original to the author and what’s sourced from elsewhere, which can make things unclear for the reader. This section really needs to separate what the author contributed—like the data, experiments, or analysis—from the methods or materials they used from other sources. A clear and well-structured methods section is key to making sure the research is transparent and can be replicated. If it's not clear what’s new or borrowed, it can weaken the overall impact of the study.

 

Also, if the results section isn’t clear, especially with how the stats are reported, it makes it tough for readers to really grasp the findings. Clear and straightforward reporting of the stats is key for people to understand the significance of the results. When the stats aren’t easy to follow, it can take away from the impact of the study. Cleaning up this section will help get the findings across much better.

 

Tables should avoid using colored fonts. Instead, opt for italics.

 

The main issue with the paper is the clarity and presentation of the data, especially in the methodology and results sections, which are really important for understanding and replicating the study. There's some confusion between what the author did and what was taken from other sources in the methodology, and the way the statistics are reported in the results could be clearer. This affects how transparent and impactful the study comes across. To address these issues, the methodology should clearly separate the author's original contributions from what was sourced from existing work, labeling what’s original and what’s borrowed, with some explanation of why certain methods were used. The statistical reporting in the results section should be made easier to follow, using consistent terminology and including key details like p-values and confidence intervals. Brief explanations of key statistical concepts could also help make the data more understandable. Lastly, reorganizing the sections for better flow and readability by using headings and subheadings where necessary will ensure everything is presented logically and smoothly. These changes would make the paper much clearer and more effective without requiring a complete rewrite.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Management in Forest and Wood-processing Sector

This paper investigates corporate culture within Slovakia's forest and wood-processing industry. The study focuses on identifying the existing and preferred corporate cultures and examining whether socio-demographic factors (such as gender, age, education, seniority, and working category) influence management's approach to corporate culture. Using the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) methodology, the research reveals that hierarchy and clan cultures are dominant in the sector. The hierarchy culture emphasizes order, regulations, and stability, while the clan culture fosters a family-like work environment centered around teamwork and employee engagement. The study concludes that socio-demographic characteristics influence perceptions of corporate culture, with differences emerging in management's approach based on factors like age and education. The research highlights the need for managers to adapt their approaches to align with employees' personal characteristics to foster a supportive and effective corporate culture for long-term success and sustainability.

I enjoyed the paper, but it definitely needs some rewriting. For starters, the Introduction would benefit from a stronger first paragraph that clearly lays out the objective and grabs the reader’s attention right away. It should define the problem or knowledge gap and explain why the research is important in a bigger context. To make the paper clearer and easier to read, the language should be simplified and the sentences tightened up. For example, the abstract could be more concise by focusing on the main goals without repeating things. The introduction could be smoothed out to better engage the reader, and the results and discussion should trim unnecessary words to highlight the key findings. Lastly, the conclusion could be more direct, summarizing the main corporate cultures in a straightforward way. Overall, cutting down on jargon, avoiding repetition, and improving the flow between sections will really improve the paper’s presentation.

Thank you for the recommendations. They were accepted and incorporated to the text together with the recommendations of other reviewers. A stronger first paragraph was added where the objective and knowledge gap were defined. We tried to make the paper clearer and easier to read. Abstract was edited. We tried to avoid repeating things. Introduction, Results and Discussion were edited. Conclusion was adjusted. Changes provided are highlighted.

 

I found the methodology section a bit confusing. It’s not clear what parts are original to the author and what’s sourced from elsewhere, which can make things unclear for the reader. This section really needs to separate what the author contributed—like the data, experiments, or analysis—from the methods or materials they used from other sources. A clear and well-structured methods section is key to making sure the research is transparent and can be replicated. If it's not clear what’s new or borrowed, it can weaken the overall impact of the study.

The Methodology section was reorganized and extended, also based on the recommendations of other reviewers.

 

Also, if the results section isn’t clear, especially with how the stats are reported, it makes it tough for readers to really grasp the findings. Clear and straightforward reporting of the stats is key for people to understand the significance of the results. When the stats aren’t easy to follow, it can take away from the impact of the study. Cleaning up this section will help get the findings across much better.

For better understanding, the Results were explained more.

 

Tables should avoid using colored fonts. Instead, opt for italics.

Tables were adjusted.

 

The main issue with the paper is the clarity and presentation of the data, especially in the methodology and results sections, which are really important for understanding and replicating the study. There's some confusion between what the author did and what was taken from other sources in the methodology, and the way the statistics are reported in the results could be clearer. This affects how transparent and impactful the study comes across. To address these issues, the methodology should clearly separate the author's original contributions from what was sourced from existing work, labeling what’s original and what’s borrowed, with some explanation of why certain methods were used. The statistical reporting in the results section should be made easier to follow, using consistent terminology and including key details like p-values and confidence intervals. Brief explanations of key statistical concepts could also help make the data more understandable. Lastly, reorganizing the sections for better flow and readability by using headings and subheadings where necessary will ensure everything is presented logically and smoothly. These changes would make the paper much clearer and more effective without requiring a complete rewrite.

Methodology and Results were adjusted and extended to be more clear. Terminology was adjusted. The statistical reporting, confidence intervals were explained more properly. P-values were added. Results were reorganized for better understanding. Headings and subheadings were added for better flow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article examines the influence of corporate culture on the management of forestry and woodworking companies in Slovakia (however, the title of the article takes the reader down a different path). Corporate culture is increasingly seen as a key factor in successful and sustainable business development, which makes the study of this topic very timely. The relevance of this topic is also due to modern trends and the need for companies to adapt to new socio-economic realities.

The author reviews the existing literature on various aspects of corporate culture. However, the review of scientific literature could be highlighted in a separate section and slightly expanded for a more in-depth analysis of the presented literature.

The study is based on the methodology of corporate culture assessment (OCAI) and statistical methods of analysis. Using OCAI as a tool for measuring and classifying types of corporate culture is an adequate choice. Conducting statistical analysis and tests to check the influence of socio-demographic factors on the perception of corporate culture also increases the scientific validity of the findings. However, it would be useful to describe the data collection process and the justification for the sample in more detail to increase the reproducibility of the study. Overall, the article is an interesting and relevant study, however, to enhance the scientific contribution and practical significance of the article, the following changes should be made:

- The Abstract should briefly clarify the research methods, object, data (sample coverage, etc.).

- The Introduction contains most of the material that can be attributed to the Literature Review. I recommend highlighting this section separately. At the same time, the presentation of the Introduction should first be based on the relevance of the issue.

Please clarify the purpose of the article ("The aim of the research is to identify corporate culture in Slovakia along with its existing and preferred types" vs / "The aim of the research was to identify corporate culture and verify whether selected socio-demographic factors influenced management concerning corporate culture in the forest and wood-processing sector") - this is important in terms of the consistency of the survey data, purpose and conclusions.

- The sequence of material in the Methods section also needs to be revised. I recommend starting directly with the method used (line 156), then the data (line 128) and then the hypotheses (line 162). In this case, it is necessary to additionally clarify the exact period of data collection, the method of data collection (how the respondents were surveyed, how the data was collected and processed, were there any exceptions). The authors need to specify the relevance of the respondents to the wood-processing sector. The OCAI methodology used also requires clarification, whether it was changed for the purposes of the study (as in the form of a survey sheet, the authors can make available the questions that were asked to respondents, the rating scale). For complete rigor of the study, the authors can provide the primary processed data (via the repository) [this is a recommendation, not mandatory].

Attention should be paid to the hypotheses. Their current wording is not complete in order to clearly confirm or refute them. For a hypothesis, it is important to clarify the strength and / or direction of influence. In addition, the authors are already generalizing the influence of several factors at once, so clarification is also needed here. The Methods section, or the Discussion section (at the discretion of the authors), may be supplemented with Research Limitations and Assumptions.

- In Results and Discussion, authors should address the hypotheses and provide appropriate conclusions.

- I also recommend revising the manuscript title to reflect the purpose of the study and the content.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

The article examines the influence of corporate culture on the management of forestry and woodworking companies in Slovakia (however, the title of the article takes the reader down a different path). Corporate culture is increasingly seen as a key factor in successful and sustainable business development, which makes the study of this topic very timely. The relevance of this topic is also due to modern trends and the need for companies to adapt to new socio-economic realities.

The author reviews the existing literature on various aspects of corporate culture. However, the review of scientific literature could be highlighted in a separate section and slightly expanded for a more in-depth analysis of the presented literature.

Thank you for the recommendations. They were accepted and incorporated to the text together with the recommendations of other reviewers. Literature review was extended.

 

The study is based on the methodology of corporate culture assessment (OCAI) and statistical methods of analysis. Using OCAI as a tool for measuring and classifying types of corporate culture is an adequate choice. Conducting statistical analysis and tests to check the influence of socio-demographic factors on the perception of corporate culture also increases the scientific validity of the findings. However, it would be useful to describe the data collection process and the justification for the sample in more detail to increase the reproducibility of the study. Overall, the article is an interesting and relevant study, however, to enhance the scientific contribution and practical significance of the article, the following changes should be made:

The section Methodology was extended. The data collection process was described.

 

- The Abstract should briefly clarify the research methods, object, data (sample coverage, etc.).

Abstract was adjusted. Changes provided are highlighted.

 

- The Introduction contains most of the material that can be attributed to the Literature Review. I recommend highlighting this section separately. At the same time, the presentation of the Introduction should first be based on the relevance of the issue.

Text was reorganized. A stronger Introduction and Literature Review was added.

 

Please clarify the purpose of the article ("The aim of the research is to identify corporate culture in Slovakia along with its existing and preferred types" vs / "The aim of the research was to identify corporate culture and verify whether selected socio-demographic factors influenced management concerning corporate culture in the forest and wood-processing sector") - this is important in terms of the consistency of the survey data, purpose and conclusions.

The aim was adjusted.

 

- The sequence of material in the Methods section also needs to be revised. I recommend starting directly with the method used (line 156), then the data (line 128) and then the hypotheses (line 162). In this case, it is necessary to additionally clarify the exact period of data collection, the method of data collection (how the respondents were surveyed, how the data was collected and processed, were there any exceptions). The authors need to specify the relevance of the respondents to the wood-processing sector. The OCAI methodology used also requires clarification, whether it was changed for the purposes of the study (as in the form of a survey sheet, the authors can make available the questions that were asked to respondents, the rating scale). For complete rigor of the study, the authors can provide the primary processed data (via the repository) [this is a recommendation, not mandatory].

Section Methodology was adjusted and extended. Informations were added, also based on the recommendations of other reviewers.

 

Attention should be paid to the hypotheses. Their current wording is not complete in order to clearly confirm or refute them. For a hypothesis, it is important to clarify the strength and / or direction of influence. In addition, the authors are already generalizing the influence of several factors at once, so clarification is also needed here. The Methods section, or the Discussion section (at the discretion of the authors), may be supplemented with Research Limitations and Assumptions.

Hypotheses were adjusted mainly in the section of Methodology. Hypotheses were evaluated separately in section of Results with better clarification. Limitations and further direction of the research were added into the Conlusions.

 

- In Results and Discussion, authors should address the hypotheses and provide appropriate conclusions.

Hypotheses and conclusions were added into the Results and Discussion. Changes provided are highlighted.

 

- I also recommend revising the manuscript title to reflect the purpose of the study and the content.

The manuscript title was revised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well done. Congrats.