Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

   First of all, I would like to thank you for the opportunity and the trust placed in me to review this work. The work is of relevance to the scientific community and addresses a topic of current concern. The theoretical justification is good, but the method and results need some improvement.

   Abstract. Introduce in the summary some idea about the theoretical foundation that motivates the researchers to carry out this study. Likewise, the method should be better explained.

   The introduction and conceptualization of the study are very well developed. The description of how the sample is accessed should be included in the method section (delete from 2.3.). Otherwise, I believe there is sufficient justification for developing the study.

   Method and results. The method is the section that allows researchers to understand in detail the process carried out up to the extraction of results. Therefore, the method is the fundamental section to determine the quality of a scientific work. At this point, I consider some important actions for the improvement of the manuscript:

·No reference is made to the approval of an ethics committee to conduct the study. Nor is the Helsinki declaration cited at this point.

·The measurement instruments should be described in detail: original authors, respective validation in the language of the sample, example items of each scale, internal consistency and reliability of the instruments, etc.

· The values marked in Figure 2 are the standardized parameter estimates?

·Could the explanatory model cease to be explanatory because of some variable that determines it? That is, some multigroup analysis (model invariance) should be performed for gender or age groups.

   The discussion and conclusions are fine, although I would put more emphasis on explaining the importance of the model created. On the other hand, I also miss more references to justify the results obtained. Give visibility to the future opportunities of these results.

Review English after changes.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please find the attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article analyzes the working conditions of workers on online platforms. The theme is pertinent and current and still little discussed in scientific terms.

1 – Summary – in the summary be clearer about these types of workers and work, with an impact on various dimensions of these people's lives. Also mention which methodology was used (quality of life questionnaire and how many workers and which platforms). In the results, refer to the 5 questions that were found (explain). I understand that the abstract has a word limit, but I would recommend rephrasing it.

2 – Introduction, problematizes the theme and defines the objective of the article (see what I wrote later – since in the methods it refers to objectives again – standardize)

3 – Theoretical foundation – defines the concepts of Work/life balance and quality of life, illustrating some studies on the subject, but does not explore much the concept of  wellbeing (psychological), which is implicit in the model presented in the framework. I suggest that this concept be further developed.

4 – In the Proposed Framework and Hypotheses, perhaps it would be more relevant to include this topic in the methodology, since it presents the exploratory study that was carried out and that led to the creation of the research instruments. Justify that the methodology had two phases.

4 – In the methods used, the authors more precisely define the objective of the study "The purposes of the study are to determine the relationships amongst gig workers' work domain, life domain, overall quality of life, and psychological well-being in order to understand and improve the employment environment of gig workers on the platform". Perhaps it was relevant that the objective was clarified at the beginning of the article.

In this point the authors focus more on technical aspects of the application of the instruments. In the beginning they repeat what was clarified in the framework. As I suggested, it might be important to connect these two points, since the methodology is not just "techniques".

Note: Clarify why you characterize the sample in the data collection part. 

5 – Data presentation is clear

6 – The results clarify that the “general quality of life” is positively related to the “psychological quality of life”, a hypothesis that is part of the model, but it would be relevant to highlight that job instability and poor conditions (lack of protection social) interfere in this quality of life.  I suggest that the discussion of the results be separated from the conclusions.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please find the attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor and authors,

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript. There are some opportunities for improvement that would be following stated:

 

Abstract:

In line 16, it would be interesting to mention the "5 paths" mentioned.

 

Keywords:

Please do not use the same terms in the title and in the keywords section.

 

Introduction:

Line 35-38: Could the authors provide any reference that supports this statement?

 

Lines 42-43: Could the authors provide the reference of any study protocool, pre-prints or published research abour this topic?

 

Line 43-44:  Cite an example of "Early studies focused on changes in the labor environment due to the development of ICT "

 

Lines 48-49: Please provide a reference that supports the statement "Meanwhile, some studies noted 48 change in the labor market due to the Fourth Industrial Revolution".

 

Lines 52-54: Is the following sentence correctly written: A raised the necessity of protecting workers under 52 labor laws and social security system in tandem with the digital transformation of labor 53 and change of worker status.

 

Lines 104-110: Please provide a reference that supports the statements made in this line.

 

Methods:

Lines 234-239: Explain in detail how "Working environment", "Social support", "life domain satisfaction", "leisure", "economic", "emotional constructs", "Overall quality of life" and "Psychological well-being" are constructed. Specific questions used in the survey should be provided, maybe as supplementary materials.

 

Line 242: Please state wich is the number of the Likert Scale for "strongly agree"

 

Lines 258-268: Please express demograpich data in a table.

 

Findings:

Table 1: Please provide the p-values that correspond to the present t-values.

 

Lines 296-298: Please provide a reference that support the statement made.

 

Table 3. Please provide the p-values that correspond to the present t-values.

 

Discussion and conclussions

Line 341-344: Please provide a reference that supports the statement made.

 

It would be adviasable to discuss the present results with further research. For instance, have any other factors appart from the included in this research being associated to overall quality of life and/or psychological well-being in  gig workers or workers from other areas.

Minor mistakes were identified, in general the manuscript is correctly written.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments. Please find the attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider that the authors have made an effort to improve the manuscript according to the indications given. Although not all issues regarding the applied methodology have been resolved, the work in its present format could be of interest to the scientific community and serve as a basis for future research.

Perform a general check for minor errors.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have included the proposed changes.