Integrating Leadership in Job Demand Resources (JD-R) for Personal Performance in Military Institution

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article touches on a very important problem because ESG issues have become important not only in the civil economy, but also in military institutions.

Unfortunately, the article is written in an incomprehensible way. The research part is completely, at least for me, incomprehensible.

The research method is misrepresented. There is no description of the model (the authors write that they use the 3. Choosing the ordinary least square estimation (OLS) technique. But between what and what?

In Tab. 1 they use the GTL1, etc. symbols, but what do they mean? I couldn't find this anywhere.

What can be read from the numbers in the diagram in Fig. 2.

References in the text, e.g. ... refers to [49], [50] are completely illegible. You can briefly describe the information form the references. It is hard to expect that a reader who wants to read the article quickly will have to find 50 other articles on the Internet, not necessarily widely available.

The Discussion presents opinions not resulting from research, e.g.

"In addition, the 234 dynamics of the regions where the village heads work are very different in rural, remote, 235 and urban areas. Village heads develop skills in cooperation and communication with 236 various languages, cultures, and different groups of people."

The lack of a clearly presented research method, presentation of results and their discussion reduces confidence in the research conclusions presented in Conclusion

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We want to express our appreciation for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of our work. After carefully considering your feedback, we have made several revisions, including the changes suggested in the sentences marked in blue. These revisions have significantly improved the clarity and precision of our manuscript, and we hope they have addressed your concerns.

We want to thank you for your critical evaluation of our work and your constructive feedback, which has helped us enhance our research's quality and relevance. Our revised manuscript now meets the high standards of your esteemed journal, and we hope that you will find it acceptable for publication.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable contribution to our work and look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
Alex Winarno
Department of Business Administration, Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

(1). Abstract: Abstract needs to be re written with more information.

(2). Keywords: Adequate

(3). Introduction: This section messes that why this particular study is needed, what gaps will be addressed by doing this research and what will be the contribution of the research. I suggest a complete re-writing of Introduction section considering the points raised.

(4). Literature Review: The literature review is adequate but could be more thorough and could be presented more effectively.

(5). Materials and Methods: Elaborate the details of the research methodology. Justify, why adopted the ordinary least square estimation approach. Discus the suitability of this methodology for this problem.  Address the advantages of this methodology over other methodologies.

(6). Results: Explained well. Highlights the novel aspects

(7). Discussion: Reads well

(8). Conclusion: Reads well

(9). Citations/references are not proper format in the entire paper. It should be corrected. Attention should be paid to clarity of expression and readability

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We want to express our appreciation for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of our work.
After carefully considering your feedback, we have made several revisions, including the changes suggested in the sentences marked in blue. These revisions have significantly improved the clarity and precision of our manuscript, and we hope they have addressed your concerns.
We want to thank you for your critical evaluation of our work and your constructive feedback, which has helped us enhance our research's quality and relevance. Our revised manuscript now meets the high standards of your esteemed journal, and we hope that you will find it acceptable for publication.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable contribution to our work and look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
Alex Winarno
Department of Business Administration, Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Here are some comments on this study to make it better:

1) The article's content is presented in the direction of describing a process of building and designing an information system rather than a scientific article. The author needs to build the content of the article towards the following contents: (a) Introduction, (b) Literature, (c) Research method, (d) Result, (e) Discussion, and (f) Conclusion and Further research.

2) The introduction should be rewritten. One of the most pressing challenges is the theoretical research gap. If other academics have not done anything, it does not imply a research gap; our analysis identified a knowledge gap critical for manuscript submission to SCIE journals. Please provide a well-defined research gap. Typically, the framework will consist of the following elements: the significance of the issue, motivation (optional), research gap(s), aims, and possible contributions (optional). The lack of research gap(s) reduced the paper's value.

3)The sample description should be presented in the Table (age, gender, occupation,…)

4) Some indexes as Standardized Loading factor (GTL1) or AVE of GTL, GHR are not fit.

5) Conclusion should emphasize the contribution of this study as well as limitations, further research

6) There are still several language issues found that influence the manuscript's readability. Therefore, the reviewer still suggests that the authors use the service as a native proofreader.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We want to express our appreciation for your insightful comments and suggestions, which have been instrumental in improving the quality of our work.
After carefully considering your feedback, we have made several revisions, including the changes suggested in the sentences marked in blue. These revisions have significantly improved the clarity and precision of our manuscript, and we hope they have addressed your concerns.
We want to thank you for your critical evaluation of our work and your constructive feedback, which has helped us enhance our research's quality and relevance. Our revised manuscript now meets the high standards of your esteemed journal, and we hope that you will find it acceptable for publication.
Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable contribution to our work and look forward to hearing back from you.
Sincerely,
Alex Winarno
Department of Business Administration, Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

With the changes made, the article seems interesting.

There are a number of places where dots should or shouldn't be. Please check it. Similarly, for multiple references - whether they should be separated by commas - please check with the journal editors.

I wish you success in your research work and best regards.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your cooperation. This paper is good for publication.