How Can We Make a Sustainable Workplace? Workplace Ostracism, Employees’ Well-Being via Need Satisfaction and Moderated Mediation Role of Authentic Leadership
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It was a pleasure for me to read this article. The topic is interesting and the narrative flow is easy to follow. However, the author (s) should also consider the following suggestions:
- Introduction
- Line 71: The reference Sharma and Dhar should be numbered in the text.
- Theory and Hypotheses
- Line 130 and Line 132: A space is missing before the numerals in square brackets.
- Line 150, Line 206, Line 220, and so on: In the text of the paper some references are written in a different font. I would suggest to the authors to check the whole paper and make sure that the same font is used everywhere.
- Method
- Method section should be improved with information about the participants. How your participants were chosen? Were these employees and Korean companies chosen according to a certain criterion? The authors should mention what were the criteria/reasons for choosing these employees and not others.
- The author (s) must specify the sampling method used to select participants, together with a justification for choosing it.
- This section should be improved with information about the research period.
- This section should be improved with information about the data collection procedure.
-Line 294-336: it would be recommended that subchapter 3.2 Measures should not be divided into sub - subchapters because this sub - subchapters contain only a few rows each.
- Results
- Line 350: because it is the first appearance in the text, the full name for the SRMR must be used and then the abbreviation can be used.
- Line 407 – 409: Perhaps not all potential readers know the meaning of the abbreviations LLCI and ULCI. I think it would be necessary for the authors to mention the full name and then the abbreviation for the first appearance in the text or to mention the abbreviation in Table 5 and to move the comments after the appearance of the table in the text.
- Conclusion
- This section is too short. Conclusions will need a revision, in order to better reflect on the added value of your study to the existing body of knowledge. Which insights from the literature are confirmed, which are contested, which new insights does your study add? Who could use these results?
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper deals with current and important issue and I would like to congratulate the authors. However, I can see some potential for improvement.
Authentic leadership is important part of the study but it can be different in different cultures. I miss here at least a short explanation on international dimension of the study. Is it universal for entire world or rather should be interpreted as typical for some regions?
I was not able to find efficient information on the size/type of companies which employees took part in the research. Different styles of leadership also different conditions can be found in small/medium/big organizations.
Method
- the paper does not mention when the study took place, how were employees informed about the research? What does it mean “highly reliable survey”? Is it only authors’s opinion?
- Is there a questionnaire attached to the paper? It should be in my opinion
- T1 does it mean first round of research, T2 after one-month delay?
Language editing seems to be necessary. I am not a native speaker but I am not sure about the use of reported speech statements – “Previous studies found that 65 ostracism threatens the sense of belonging…” Should the second part of this sentence be in past? Next paragraph (line 76) starts with present perfect – this mixture of tenses makes me uncomfortable about English grammar.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made the necessary changes as recommended. In the text of the paper there are still some references written in another font, so please review the style of the references. Congratulations.
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.
