The Use of Team Management Methods to Design Socially Responsible Services—A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Dear authors, despite the changes you brought to this new version, I miss some major reviews on:
• Need to complement the literature review section, establishing a coerent overview, starting from sustainable/socially responsible behaviours and then going to pro-health behaviours - here despite having added some contributions I would have rewrote the section and giving a more coerent line
• I miss the design of a model for the study, because fig. 2 presents the research methodology - here I miss the hypothesis and the connections that are the baseline of the study that you are trying to analyse
• I miss the justification of the empirical methods used, based on prior studies
• Figures, Tables and Schemes appear in a sequence of pages and should be integrated in the flow of the paper, the empirical methodologies, the data, the findings
• I still miss a more critical debate in the discussion section, contrasting literature review with results of the present study and having it aligned with the aim of the research
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Again, thank you for your valuable comments, we have tried to include them all:
- We have supplemented the literature review with further items related to the research problem, the newly added fragments are marked in green;
- We refined the research model including the main hypothesis of the research and made it more understandable;
- We justified the choice and application of research methods;
- Tables and figures and graphs have been placed in the course of the text.
- We have supplemented the literature in the discussion part by matching it to the purpose of the research. We hope that we have managed to interpret your expectations well, we realize that we could continue to improve the article, but we ask for your understanding and acceptance of its current form, if only it can be assumed that it meets the basic requirements for publication.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
The purpose and differentiation of the study are not clear. In addition, the design is unclear, and the implications of this are not important.Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Again, thank you for your valuable comments, we have tried to include them all:
- We have supplemented the literature review with further items related to the research problem, the newly added fragments are marked in green;
- We refined the research model including the main hypothesis of the research and made it more understandable;
- We justified the choice and application of research methods;
- Tables and figures and graphs have been placed in the course of the text.
- We have supplemented the literature in the discussion part by matching it to the purpose of the research. We hope that we have managed to interpret your expectations well, we realize that we could continue to improve the article, but we ask for your understanding and acceptance of its current form, if only it can be assumed that it meets the basic requirements for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
I think the paper reads really nice. I think you can still improve and clarify the difference between an organization striving for profits and simultanously doing good for the society (wellbeing). I think in the borderline between profits and doing good business you find sustainability. “doing good” and “doing good business” (see Dahlin et al., 2020). This might also clarify your contribution.
I would also suggest you use a general reference on procedures for statistics. I suggest as for selection of informants and procedures you use (Pesämaa et al., 2021).
Given this I think the paper is ready to go.
Reference
Dahlin, P., Ekman, P., Röndell, J., & Pesämaa, O. (2020). Exploring the business logic behind CSR certifications. Journal of Business Research, 112, 521-530.
Pesämaa, O., Zwikael, O., HairJr, J., & Huemann, M. (2021). Publishing quantitative papers with rigor and transparency. International Journal of Project Management, 39(3), 217-222.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Again, thank you for your valuable comments, we have tried to include them all:
- We have supplemented the literature review with further items related to the research problem, the newly added fragments are marked in green;
-
We refined the research model including the main hypothesis of the research and made it more understandable;
- We justified the choice and application of research methods;
- Tables and figures and graphs have been placed in the course of the text.
- We have supplemented the literature in the discussion part by matching it to the purpose of the research. We hope that we have managed to interpret your expectations well, we realize that we could continue to improve the article, but we ask for your understanding and acceptance of its current form, if only it can be assumed that it meets the basic requirements for publication.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
It is necessary to supplement the practical implications.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you for drawing our attention to an important element of the study. We included it in the new version of the manuscript (highlighted blue text).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for sharing your students' research project! Unfortunately, there appears to be a misalignment between the background/lit review and the methods/findings. It read as two separate ideas. I found this to be an excellent summary of a class project (starting with the materials/methods), but it lacked scientific soundness as an empirical work. I am of the opinion that this would be well suited for entry into a best practice assignment award for this class topic rather than an empirical study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your valuable comments. In relation to them, we would like to point out that the empirical part is an integral part of the presented case study and emphasizes the importance and utilitarian nature of the method used to activate and stimulate the group's commitment to social goals. Therefore, its removal and placement in a separate study would significantly impoverish the qualities of the presented manuscript.
The main objective of our research was: “The aim of the research was to present the provision of socially useful services as the expression of co-management and commitment to sustainable development. The case study was adopted as a research approach.” “The following objectiveswere formulated: Identifying the advantages and challenges within the studied method of providing social services (1). Determining the groups of stakeholders of the activity (2). Determining the effects of influencing the target group and other stakeholders (3).” The rationale for choosing such a research objective was the intention to present a case study, a good practice that can effectively contribute to sustainable development. The effectiveness of the presented case was confirmed in the obtained results of the empirical study, which are socially engaged and utilitarian for society.
Research in the empirical part conducted by students, but supervised and moderated by experienced scientists. This ensured the correctness of the use of appropriate research methods and tools and the formulation of correct conclusions. The results of their own research were also confronted with the results of similar studies by other authors, which confirm convergent observations regarding the phenomenon being studied empirically.
We have made several additions to the text to make it easier to understand the goals of the work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The paper addresses a very important issue, namely the use of team management methods to design socially responsible services - an application to pro-health cancer activities/behaviours.
The methodology based on a case study is interesting and well justified, however some aspects deserve more attention:
- Need to complement the literature review section, establishing a coerent overview, starting from sustainable/socially responsible behaviours and then going to pro-health behaviours;
- I miss the design of a model for the study, because fig. 2 presents the research methodology;
- Concerning literature review and hypothesis formulated, I miss a disaggregation of the demographic variable in diverse sub-hypothesis plus their based literature review;
- The same is also needed for the other hypothesis, which need a more sustained backed literature review;
- Regarding Hc I would also make a disaggregation effort;
- Line 323 - pay attention to the table title;
- I miss a more critical debate in the discussion section, contrasting literature review with results of the present study and having it aligned with the aim of the research, i.e., how to provide socially useful services as an expression of co-management and commitment to sustainable development.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your valuable comments. In line with them, we completed the literature review both in the area of sustainable/socially responsible behavior, and then moving on to health-promoting behaviors. We have attached to the work a research model and its explanation. As for the disaggregation of variables , we believe this is an important point to consider, however, we find no justification for expanding this topic in the current article. We want to continue our work and develop these topics in the next stages of research. We have corrected the indicated technical errors. We have added a critical debate on co-management and commitment to sustainability.
Reviewer 3 Report
The clear purpose and background of the research are lacking, and the justification of the research is also lacking. It has only meaning as a research note rather than a full paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
thank you for your critical comments. Taking them into account will allow us to improve manuscript. The main objective of our research was to present the provision of socially useful services as the expression of co-management and commitment to sustainable development. The case study was adopted as a research approach. The authors' intention was to present an example, good practice that can effectively contribute to sustainable development. The effectiveness of the presented case was confirmed in the obtained results of the empirical study, which are socially engaged and utilitarian for society.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your comments. My original suggestion was not to remove the empirical piece, but rather that the empirical piece was not strong enough to be published in its current state. Unfortunately, the revised literature review is still under developed and does not connect well to the methodology section. This is the most problematic issue that still persists.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors, a set of improvements were asked, namely: (i) need to complement the literature review section; (ii) disaggregation of the demographic variable in diverse sub-hypothesis plus their based literature review, as well as for the other hypothesis, which need a more sustained backed literature review; (iii) regarding Hc it should be disaggregated as well; (iv) a more critical debate in the discussion section, contrasting literature review with results of the present study and having it aligned with the aim of the research. Despite some adjustments and efforts made, I understand that the paper, to be published, still needs a more profound effort from you to be able to reposition it.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper was not improved or developed at all.