Exploring the Continuous Motivation of Algorithm Engineers under Multiple Objectives: A Mixed-Methods Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

As a topic to research it's an interesting proposition. However, there are weaknesses in the submission:

1. Mixed methods approach lacks detail. How are the two datasets mixed? Vailidity of method is missing. Lack of rigour. Too much emphasis on QUAN data, lack of balance. 

2. QUAL data is limited.

3. Limited references, lacks theoretical debate. 

4. Contribution to theory and practice unclear.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

We really appreciate your efforts in carefully reviewing our paper and giving the insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. We are also really grateful to you for providing very detailed and specific suggestions and advices on revising the paper. We feel that your constructive comments and suggestions have helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript much. A point-by-point response to your comments is provided below.

Best wishes！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper discusses the promulgation of a performance-based model. The model is based on agency theory. Interesting to read. Unfortunately lacks a sound literature base to reflect research question and gap in literature.

Introduction is not clear  - begins with grand claims and continues without stating the research questions/s or research focus. 

Introduction and literature is lumped together so difficult to discern the motivation. The Research question is not clear till one reads page 5. Para 2 in introduction line 30 on page one - provides a conclusive sentence without any reference -. It is only on line 30 that one sees references made to prior research and content/ context here this is not fully explained or analyzed-- see comment below. what new knowledge is added by this research is not forthcoming nor succinctly stated.

There is no Literature section. This needs to be developed and thoroughly argued as to what the gap is and why it is important to undertake such a study. One is left wondering what is the purpose of the study. How teh previous studies cited on page 2 relevant to the current study. Link these studies to the research question of the current study. Fundamentally how is this study related to overall concept of sustainability - not clear anywhere or mentioned in the study.  Suggest use the arguments that a adequate PMS leads to sustainable practices and business operations backed by literature on PMS.  Need to explain why 3 performance indicators only --- relate to sustainability of the organization and retaining employees .

Section 3- results actually explains how data was analysed using qualitative method. There is mixture of results and methods on page 3.

 

Page 5 uses agency model to propose model construct but fails to relate the proposal to agency theory. there is a confusion as to why the word hypothesis is used - when this is premise on which the  model is constructed. As stated the hypothesis have assumptions not clear why.

The model is then constructed throughout pages 6-7 and conclusions are stated on the model . The semantic meaning of the word conclusion is thus loose. The results span from page 3 to page 12 as section 3 and this is followed by another result section as section 3 titled conclusion.

It is not clear as to how teh author/s reached conclusions on company K using their model.

Can teh authors differentiate their equations model formation, then show how teh model works with Company K statistics. The paper will greatly benefit from this distinction and this will lead to a clearer understanding of what teh paper has contributed and teh new knowledge if any.

Currently is not clear how the 3 variables lead to multidimensional PMS.

Can the authors also please clearly specify the sections of their research as required by academic journals.  

The paper has academic value to offer in its current state very aspect is disorganized and hence rather difficult to logically follow the arguments. 

 

I wish the authors all the best with their revision. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer：

We really appreciate your efforts in carefully reviewing our paper and giving the insightful and constructive comments and suggestions. We are also really grateful to you for providing very detailed and specific suggestions and advices on revising the paper. We feel that your constructive comments and suggestions have helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript much. A point-by-point response to your comments is provided below.

Best wishes！

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

A good paper, with theoretical and practical impact clearly stated. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Significantly improved paper. Authors have addressed the concerns raised.