Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title is interesting

Some figures need to be clarified and adjusted 

With more explanation because we have to consider all readers levels 

As well as the abstract I a bit long 

Good

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to express their gratitude to you for dedicating time to thoroughly review this paper and offer valuable insights. The positive feedback, helpful suggestions, and constructive criticisms provided have been instrumental in refining and elevating the paper's overall caliber. We remain appreciative of the your contributions in furthering the excellence of our work.

Please see attachement for responses

Thank you

Ifeoma Onyemlukwe

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper that tries to provide a literature review of a novel concept, "human energy." Much of the first part of the article outlines the method of identifying the relevant publications on "human energy." However, at no point is the concept of human energy actually defined or outlined in detail. My impression is that it is this "nebulous term" that could be used to encompass a number of things including: fatigue, stress, burnout, abstenteeism, high levels of sick leave, poor workplace culture, and so on. The underlying assumption being that high human energy levels within an organization is a good thing because it promotes greater productivity, creativity, and wellbeing for the employees/workers. Whereas low human energy levels within an organization is a bad thing because it results in poor productivity, creativity, and wellbeing for the employees/workers.

In my view, an opportunity has been missed here in defining what the term "human energy" means and to identify its essential elements. How is "human energy" defined, if at all, in the literature and what are its key attributes and characteristics? I make this statement in the full knowledge and recognition that there is a section of the submission titled: "Definition of Human Energy." What is presented here is how human energy is utilized and described in the literature. Reference is made to "human energy depletion," the three types of human energy: emotional; mental; and physical, energetic activation, emotional exhaustion. But, how can you define this concept? A detailed review of the literature should allow you to do so, one would assume.

What seems to be central to the remaining part of the paper is the Organizational Human Energy Maintenance Pyramid. This is premised on going from the general and collective to the individual and personal, that is all based on how well that stress is managed within an organization. And, the remainder of the paper deals with how organizations can manage employees' exposure to stress in their jobs and in their workplace. While I can accept that people who have been exposed to high levels of stress in their jobs and workplace will exhibit low energy levels or worse. What I cannot accept is that low energy levels are entirely due to job or workplace stress. Perhaps someone has experience trauma of some sort outside their workplace, whether through illness, relationship breakdown, loss of a immediate family member, etc., could manifest low energy levels at work. 

Often, superior social skills sets and support networks, whether formal or informal, allow persons to be able to better handle stress in their jobs and within the workplace. Poor social skills sets and little or no support networks exposes a person to the detrimental effects of stress. My point here is if we use stress level as a proxy for human energy levels and draw a simple correlation between stress and human energy levels then we are missing a great deal. Two people can experience the same stress levels but if their social skill sets and support networks are radically different, then so too will be the effect of stress on them personally. This may or may not be manifest as low "human energy" levels.

The various strategies outlined for how to manage stress within an organization are hardly new or different from what most organizations are applying to advance a productive work environment. 

This raises the fundamental question of what is the value and utility of a "human energy" approach to human resource management or personnel management? 

While there is a fleeting reference to the European Union's vision of a sustainable and resilient society in the abstract there is scant mention of it in the article itself and no effort, it seems, to engage seriously with the EU's policies in this regard.

While there is reference to elements of the literature, I would have thought that your first section that identifies the most prominent or leading researchers on this topic would have been the focus of your literature review leading to a series of key findings based on your review of their contributions to the literature. However, I did not find this in the article per se or its conclusions.

 

A well written piece, but, I found two minor errors. 

At line 469, the word should be "have" and not "has."

At line 604. the word should be "right" and not "write."

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the you for dedicating your time to thoroughly review this paper and offer valuable insights. The positive feedback, helpful suggestions, and constructive criticisms provided have been instrumental in refining and elevating the paper's overall caliber. We remain appreciative of the Reviewer's contributions in furthering the excellence of our work. 

Please see attachment for responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The text addresses a pertinent topic in the context of organizational behavior and employee well-being. It explores the concept of human energy, its importance in the workplace, and its impact on employee engagement, performance, and overall organizational success. This exploration is valuable as it sheds light on a critical aspect of human capital management that can significantly influence organizational outcomes.

The text demonstrates an understanding of relevant scholarly literature in the field. It references various studies, researchers, and theories, showcasing a comprehensive review of the existing knowledge on human energy, engagement, and organizational culture. This thorough literature review adds scientific value by building upon established research and theories.

 

The text establishes a theoretical foundation by discussing concepts like human energy, engagement, transformational leadership, organizational culture, and psychological safety. These theoretical frameworks help frame the strategies and practical recommendations for managing human energy effectively.

 

In the text I suggest improve following problems:

The paper could benefit from a more concise and engaging introduction that clearly outlines the significance of human energy management in the context of the fifth Industrial Revolution and the current challenges faced by organizations.

The literature review should be more comprehensive and up-to-date, incorporating recent research and studies on human energy management. It should also include a discussion of any existing gaps in the literature and how the current study aims to address them.

The paper lacks a clear description of the methodology used to conduct the systematic literature review. Providing details on the search criteria, databases, and selection process would enhance the paper's credibility.

Some key concepts, such as "Techno-social dilemma" and "Organizational plasticity," are introduced without clear definitions or explanations. The paper should define these terms and explain their relevance to human energy management.

Some sentences and paragraphs are quite lengthy and could be condensed for better clarity. Additionally, some ideas could be presented more precisely to avoid ambiguity.

The paper should follow a consistent and standardized citation style throughout the text. Some references are cited without indicating the page numbers or specific sections, making it challenging for readers to locate the original sources.

he conclusion could be strengthened by summarizing the key findings and implications of the study in a more succinct and impactful manner.

The paper should undergo a thorough proofreading and editing process to correct any language and grammar errors, ensuring the text reads smoothly and professionally.

 

The paper should undergo a thorough proofreading and editing process to correct any language and grammar errors, ensuring the text reads smoothly and professionally.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the you for dedicating their time to thoroughly review this paper and offer valuable insights. The positive feedback, helpful suggestions, and constructive criticisms provided have been instrumental in refining and elevating the paper's overall caliber. We remain appreciative of the your contributions in furthering the excellence of our work.

Please see attachment for responses

Warm regards

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for taking into consideration my original comments and suggestions and making the changes to your submission.

I still have a number of comments that you may wish to consider and to take up.  

-- As I understand your compilation of the literature on "human energy" or "Human Energy," capitalized, which is not used consistently throughout the submission -- sometimes it's Human energy and sometimes it's simply Energy, was narrowed down to 18 academic publications of various types including conference papers. However, my sense is that you went well beyond these 18 academic publications in your review of the literature and examination of concept, human energy. A narrow concentration on these 18 publications would have been useful for the reader. Presumably, the detailed methodology used to identify these publications is intended to help you to distill the very essence of how human energy is understood and used in the literature. This did not come across in your submission.

-- The three principal research questions you state at the outset of your submission are covered in the body of the submission but seem to have been forgotten, to a great extent, in your conclusions. You may wish to touch on these again when summarizing your key findings in this last section, your conclusions, of your submission.

-- There are still a number of technical writing concerns that need to be addressed before your submission is published. But the submission needs a careful detailed editorial review to eliminate all the writing errors and the confusing use of key terms. 

 

There are a number of corrections that ought to be made. See the suggestions and comments listed provided below.

Human Energy Submission

Line 53 – By Human energy in this discuss,   “By human energy in this discussion,”

Line 73 – Via Human energy management,   “Via human energy management,”

Line 115 – … handles and manages Human energy.   “… handles and manages human energy.”

Line 119 -- … a culture of energy management …   “ … a culture of human energy management …”

Line 421 -- … result in an overwhelm.   “… result in an overwhelm. … of what? … work … responsibilities???”

Lines 441-442 -- … experience a sense of overwhelm,   “… experience a sense of being overwhelmed,”  … to a lack of Energy   “… to a lack of energy,”

Line 475 -- … Job burnout   “… job burnout.”

Line 514 -- … both they and their employees.   “… both for themselves and their employees.”

Line 781 – Why is the word “Companies” capitalized?

Line 821 – It should be Organizational Policies and Environmental Supports … not Polices

Line 884 – Split infinitive – It should “to address significantly.”

Line 902 – The sentence, I think, ought to read, “The major findings gap in the literature is in the strategies for the implementation of human energy.”  Your use of the phrase Human Energy and Energy – capitalized – is inconsistent throughout and this needs to be addressed and/or perhaps explained in a footnote.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors extend their sincere appreciation to the Reviewer for their dedicated effort in conducting a comprehensive review of this paper and providing invaluable insights. The positive feedback, insightful suggestions, and constructive criticisms have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and refinement of the paper.

We are grateful for your valuable contributions in advancing the excellence of our work.

Please find attached your comments, as well as our responses. Round 2 reviews in the manuscript are highlighted in turquoise color.

The authors deeply appreciate the invaluable contributions of the Reviewer, which have greatly enriched the quality of this paper.

Your attention and assistance are truly valued.

Kind regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors made good job to implement my remarks.

It's ok.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The authors extend their sincere appreciation to you for your dedicated effort in conducting a comprehensive review of this paper and providing invaluable insights. The positive feedback, insightful suggestions, and constructive criticisms have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and refinement of the paper.

We are grateful for your valuable contributions in advancing the excellence of our work.

The authors deeply appreciate your invaluable contributions, which have greatly enriched the quality of this paper.

Your attention and assistance has been truly valued.

Kind regards,

The Authors