Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is extremely well written and presented. It is interesting, important and gives a novel approach to questions of efficacy, a key component of self actualization and effectiveness at this complex time in which we live. If I was to make only two small suggestions I would say first, that the implications of the paper could be broadened out to all professionals in a variety of spheres, and secondly, that suggestions for further research might be expanded.

Author Response

Response: We feel highly appreciated for your kind evaluation regarding the present manuscript, especially your encouraging words that motivating us from the past frustration for many times of rejection. According to your wise suggestions, we broadened the implications (please indicate the lines 490-492), expanded further research (please indicate the lines 535-538).

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

First of all I would like to congratulate you on your work.
The paper meets all the scientific quality criteria for publication.
However, as a recommendation, there is a need to describe the analysis of quantitative results a little more so that people who access this scientific paper understand the relevance of the study results. They also indicate the validation of the model through SEM, but it is not clear if they confirm this model.

Best regards

Author Response

Response: We appreciate your kind review and wise suggestions. Thus, we clarified our methods for hypotheses test to make it much clearer (lines 217-233), also, in order to make readers clear if we confirmed hypotheses or not, we readjusted Figure 2 and Figure 4, to make the proposed model and adjusted model in consistency of presenting our hypotheses and results.