Multi-Perspective Approach to Building Team Resilience in Project Management—A Case Study in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with very interesting theme. I accept this paper for publishing in present form 

Author Response

Thank you for your review. We are really highly appreciated.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

1) Abstract should also highlight the methodology and outcomes of the study. It needs more clarity.

 

2) Introduction sections seems limited. Please discuss about the need, significance and objectives of this study in detail in the introduction section.

 

3) Please deliberate the specific research gaps at the end of the literature review. After synthesis of literature what are the gaps, you found that motivated you to do research.

 

4) Methodology section should also have more details of all aspects of research design (including population, sample, sample size, sample selection, criteria’s etc.)

 

5) The analysis section should be separate point in the paper.

 

6) Please provide more clarity to analysis by providing detail interpretations of each table as a outcome of the each segment of analysis.

 

7) Please revise the discussions as per the research questions/objectives.

 

8) Conclusion section is too limited. Please elaborate outcomes and implications of this study

 

9) Please revise the further scope with more clarity. Also, identify variables for future study.

 

10) Please check the journal format and English language of the paper.

Author Response

We have revised and added all suggested point by reviewer 2.  

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Recommendation: Accept with Minor Revision

Dear author/s,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. I hope you find my comments useful as you consider revising the paper. The topic is fitting with the aim and scope of the Journal. I hope this review provides some useful feedback and wish you the best of luck with the development of this paper!

 

Additional Questions:

1.      Originality:  Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes. he authors identified an interesting topic and provided significant information on the relation of “Multi-perspective approach in building team resilience in Project Management – A Case Study in Indonesia”. However, there are some issues that need clarification. More importantly, the discussion regarding the research gaps is missing!

 

 

2.      Relationship to Literature:  Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources?  Is any significant work ignored?: The literature review section is fine.

 

3.      Methodology:  Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas?  Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed?  Are the methods employed appropriate?: The paper is well structured and follows the standards of presenting hypothesis and research design. The data are collected through questionnaire. Kindly add Common Method Bias section. You can cite the below mentioned articles. These articles helps you in writing this part. Common method bias is an important section when you collect data through questionnaire.

 

Ø  Kraus, S., Rehman, S. U., & García, F. J. S. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and environmental performance: The mediating role of environmental strategy and green innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 160, 120262.

 

Ø  Rehman, S. U., Bhatti, A., Kraus, S., & Ferreira, J. J. (2020). The role of environmental management control systems for ecological sustainability and sustainable performance. Management Decision, 59(9), 2217-2237.

 

Ø  Rehman, S. U., Bresciani, S., Yahiaoui, D., & Giacosa, E. (2022). Environmental sustainability orientation and corporate social responsibility influence on environmental performance of small and medium enterprises: The mediating effect of green capability. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, ahead-of-print(ahead-of-print).

 

4. Results:  Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately?  Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The results section is fine.

 

5. Implications for research, practice and/or society:  Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society?  Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)?  What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)?  Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The implications of the research is not clear. Kindly improve this part.

 

6. Quality of Communication:  Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership?  Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: A professional review of the language is strongly suggested because several parts of the text are unclear.

 

Author Response

Article has been revised as per suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Considering the adversities around, this article has been well written on time. Yet, I would suggest a few changes to make it better,

There is a scarcity of recent literature about resilience, authors are recommended to add recently published papers in this manuscript such as follows

Sustainable Leadership, Environmental Turbulence, Resilience, and Employees' Wellbeing in SMEs

Factors Affecting Employee’s Retention: Integration of Situational Leadership With Social Exchange Theory

 The authors also did not mention about implications of the study (theoretical and practical). In the revised manuscript, it is advised to add separate sections about implications.

In this paper, the Theoretical background section is also missing. After the introduction, there is a need to write a theoretical background to ensure the soundness of the proposed model.

Good wishes,

Author Response

Article has been revised as per suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have incorporated the suggested changes hence can be considered for further process