The Relationship between Well-Being and Knowledge Sharing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor

It is an original, coherent and well structured article whose results are of interest for knowledge

Best Regard

Author Response

I appreciate your cordial comments. Thank you very much.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I am glad to have the opportunity to read your article on “The relationship between well-being and knowledge sharing”.

I would like to say that the topic of this paper is relevant, but from my humble point of view, the paper has weak points, which should be significantly improved. And these weak points are the following:

1) In the introduction and literature review section the author says that the research is based on PERMA model. For this the author should explain better this model and give examples of research where this model has been used successfully. Likewise, the author should connect well-being with the concept of happiness. So, the author should provide current references where these two concepts are interrelated. Finally, I find the research question section very poor for a journal of this quality.

2) In the material and methods section, the sample is very limited, although the author says in the limitations section. Therefore, the results obtained may not be very solid to reach relevant conclusions. Consequently, the author should better explain the sample obtained, explain whether or not it is representative, and explain how with such a small sample it is possible to reach relevant conclusions.  

3) I believe that conclusion and discussion should be improved, since this section is very limited. For this reason, the author should improve it being more profound in their explanation. they must serve for the advancement in the academy discussing with the contributions of other authors. That is, on the theoretical implications, the authors must make an effort to connect with the analysis of the literature review and provide new current references.

4) The literature review has been very scarce, since only about 30 references are offered. Additionally, and much more important, the authors only offer 4 references within the last 5 years (2017-2021), and none are from the last 3 years (2019-2020-2021). Therefore, the investigation would be completely out of date. Consequently, the author has to make a deep analysis of the literature in order to support all their claims.

Author Response

First of all, I really appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and supportive comments. Thank you very much for taking the time and effort.  

 

Point 1: In the introduction and literature review section the author says that the research is based on PERMA model. For this the author should explain better this model and give examples of research where this model has been used successfully. Likewise, the author should connect well-being with the concept of happiness. So, the author should provide current references where these two concepts are interrelated. Finally, I find the research question section very poor for a journal of this quality.

 

Response 1:

-PERMA model has been used to explain the specific career or educational program has positive impact on well-being. Such causes are not one-time but long-time process, and it is in line with this study context (line 145-146).

-I explained the reason why I use PERMA model (line 152-156).

- I described the research motivation in detail before proposing the research question (line 167-170).

 

Point 2: In the material and methods section, the sample is very limited, although the author says in the limitations section. Therefore, the results obtained may not be very solid to reach relevant conclusions. Consequently, the author should better explain the sample obtained, explain whether or not it is representative, and explain how with such a small sample it is possible to reach relevant conclusions.  

 

Response 2:

As the reviewer commented, the sample is very limited and additional surveys are required to generalize the results. In spite of such limitations, handmade creators can be said the representative knowledge sharing contributors from the aspects of numbers and the sales values. Both of them had been growing and the staying at home accelerated this world-wide trend (line 385-391).

 

Point 3: I believe that conclusion and discussion should be improved, since this section is very limited. For this reason, the author should improve it being more profound in their explanation. they must serve for the advancement in the academy discussing with the contributions of other authors. That is, on the theoretical implications, the authors must make an effort to connect with the analysis of the literature review and provide new current references.

 

Response 3: I described the contribution to the previous research:

• to visualize the increase of social welfare derived from user innovation (line 341-344)
• added a C-to-C marketplace as an incubator of user innovation to a user community, a makerspace and a crowdfunding platform which have been proposed (line 353-356)

 

 

Point 4: The literature review has been very scarce, since only about 30 references are offered. Additionally, and much more important, the authors only offer 4 references within the last 5 years (2017-2021), and none are from the last 3 years (2019-2020-2021). Therefore, the investigation would be completely out of date. Consequently, the author has to make a deep analysis of the literature in order to support all their claims.

 

Response 4: I added recent literatures in user innovation, well-being, and PERMA model (reference 19, 25, 32-35, 37-42), and described the position of this research among them. I appreciate for your respectable comments.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am glad to have the opportunity to read again your article on “The relationship between well-being and knowledge sharing”.

The paper has improved in quality with all the changes made by the author. However, from my humble point of view, I think that the article, before being published, should improve the explanation of the PERMA model because it is an important part of this research.

And finally, I believe that the discussions should be improved, since I do not clearly see the connection between the analysis of the literature review developed in point 2 and the academic discussions provided.

For these two reasons, from my humble point of view, I think this paper need a minor revision before being published, but I hope the author will be able to do it correctly.

Author Response

 

Thank you very much for your prompt and helpful feedbacks.

 

Point 1: I think that the article, before being published, should improve the explanation of the PERMA model because it is an important part of this research.

 

Response 1: First, I described flourishing which is standard to measure well-being comparing with happiness, before introducing PERMA (line 136-141). Then, I added more detail explanation why this research used PERMA model (line 156-158).

 

Point 2: And finally, I believe that the discussions should be improved, since I do not clearly see the connection between the analysis of the literature review developed in point 2 and the academic discussions provided.

 

Response 2: This research made three contributions to user innovation research. I added explanation and made the connection with literature review clearer (line 347-369).

 

Additionally, this paper included both “C-to-C marketplace” and “C-to-C business platform” and I unified them into “marketplace”.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx