The Digital Transformation of the Talent Management Process: A Spanish Business Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors must make the following corrections in the paper:

-  Authors should explain better the academic contribution of the work developed. Highlighting what is innovative / original about the existing literature.

-  Authors should improve the literature review using more recent references.

- Authors should develop the conclusions of the work and refer in more detail to the next steps of the work

- Authors should develop the Abstract, presenting in particular the main contributions / results of the work.

-Figure 4 is not clear.

- The authors should compare the results obtained in this study with other similar studies carried out in other countries.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reinforce the literature review with recent authors, such as:

Alves, P., et al. (2020). Strategic Talent Management: The Impact of Employer Branding on the Affective Commitment of Employees. Sustainability, 12(23), 9993. DOI: 10.3390/su12239993

Monteiro, B., Santos, V., Reis, I., Sampaio, M.C., Sousa, B., Martinho, F., José Sousa, M. & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2020). Employer Branding Applied to SMEs: A Pioneering Model Proposal for Attracting and Retaining Talent. Information, 11(12), 574. DOI: 10.3390/info11120574

Santos, V., Monteiro, B., Martinho, F., Reis, I., & Sousa, M.J. (2018). Employer Branding: The Power of Attraction in the EB Group. Journal of Reviews on Global Economics, 8, 118-129.

Improve the Final Considerations section with more detail. 

Moderate English revison is required. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see attachment.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall:

The use of 'Talent Management' instead of 'Talent Acquisition' when the research is focused more on the attraction more than the retention of employees needs to be considered. The more appropriate term for this study appears to be 'Talent Acquisition', when the discussion is related to training and gamification 'Talent Management' sounds right.

Section: Literature Review:

For the section "and the goal was to cover the needs of the most strategic positions, through a 86 variety of processes and systems. Lately, because of the uncertainty of the environment, 87 companies started feeling the need to search talent outside to remain competitive, and this 88 talent search is currently no longer exclusive to strategic positions. Today talent search is 89 extensively developed at intermediate levels, and therefore widens the frame concept for 90 talent management itself." More past/present theoretical background and empirical research can be provided. Eg:  In MDPI publications all of the following articles which are realted to the same study on talent acquisition align well with the topic under discussion and can be used as supporting evidence to many arguments in this article as well:

>> Rozario, S.D., Venkatraman, S., Chu, M.T. and Abbas, A., 2019. Dominant Factors for an Effective Selection System: An Australian Education Sector Perspective. Systems, 7(4), p.50.
>> Rozario, S.D., Venkatraman, S., Chu, M.T. and Abbas, A., 2020. Enabling Corporate Sustainability from a Talent Acquisition Perspective. Journal of Sustainability Research, 2(2).

Section: 5. Final Considerations

Needs to be written better as it is obscure, incoherent and very brief with typos at the moment.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This article focuses on a hot topic, so it is timely and interesting from an academic perspective.

Generically, the article deserves publication, but there are some gaps that need to be revised. For instance:

• The authors present two sections entitled "methodology", I think it is not supposed;
• Sometimes in the literature there is still some confusion in the distinction between terms, such as: Digitization, digitization and digital transformation. I think the distinction should be made clearer in this article. There are some interesting systematic literature reviews that make the mentioned distinction;
• Given the topicality of the subject, the references are somewhat outdated. For this reason, I believe that authors can add more recent references to quality journals (e.g., Scopus Q1/Q2).

In short, I think the case study itself is good and deserves to be published. The research and methodology used inspire confidence, but there are some topics above that deserve more attention.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please see the attachement.

Regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, it is much better now. Some small points to note:

• Abstract maybe best presented without any intext citation. That should be provided in the full-text.
• Sentence structure, grammar and typos to be reviewed. Eg: #71-72, 76, #378, 412 (The N%...sounds odd), 507 (the last para is very poorly written)
• Formatting to be reviewed. Eg. #61, 429
• All the graphs need to have the title/details for the x and y axis for clarity. Eg: Fig 5 (y axis - Employees)
• #484 - "Finally, the results show a bias to focus on talent acquisition more than talent retention. Nevertheless, we consider this bias may have some origins such as.." Is the wordings correct - it appears to be a misfit based on the following sentence. Should it be 'the results show a bias 'THAT FOCUSES' on ... Review and correct as required
• #498 - future investment will be needed towards (WHAT) to avoid...
• #502 -The results of this study demonstrate a trend based on the number of companies. What trend - upward, downward / In what - in the use of tools for...? This is the conclusion and must be impactful to reiterate the findings clearly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

We have corrected all the small points suggested by the reviewer at the same order they appeared in the webpage.

We are going to upload the last version of the manuscript we find at the link you sent us. All the revisions were done using "Track Changes".

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors adequately answered the questions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

We have submitted the last version of the manuscript.