The Impact of Hiring People with a Disability on Customers’ Perspectives: The Moderating Effect of Disability Type
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A good attempt. please see the attached file for detailed comments
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable comments. Please consider the attached as we modified the manuscript based on your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the author(s) for examining the impact of hiring people with dis-ability on customers’ perspectives. This study has the potential to be published with some major revisions and editing to make it even stronger. Good luck!
The literature review is thorough, but I will welcome some more recent and significant papers to be taken into consideration, such as:
· Motivating Public Sector Employees: Evidence from Greece”. International Journal of Business and Economic Sciences Applied Research
· A values framework for measuring the influence of ethics and motivation regarding the performance of employees
· The Net Effect of the travel restriction policy on tourism demand: Evidence from Greece
· Strategic Sport Sponsorship Management - A Scale Development and Validation. Journal of Business Research
· Online technologies and sports: A new era for sponsorship
· Cash Holdings, Corporate Performance and Viability of Greek SME: Implications for Stakeholder Relationship Management
The methodology is lacking in terms of the research setting and exact survey methods. I am not clear how the participants were recruited, contacted, surveyed, or incentivized, if any. There needs to be more detail in how the study was designed and who participated.
The section of results was quite clear and well written and presented.
Findings and Implications: There was a bit of a reach here in terms of providing conclusions that were not a direct result of the analyses. Some conclusions were also made indicating unique results related to the social entrepreneurship field. These distinctions were not supported or justified by the study. I think the authors need to make sure the conclusions that are presented are based on the individual results from each hypothesis and that overreaches are not made.
The paper needs a full edit, to assist the author with some language issues in the writing. There is a lot of superfluous wording, unusual phrasing, which is simply due to the author(s) writing in a second language. This should not diminish their hard work or prevent publication. But a major edit would make it easier to follow for the reader.
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable comments. Please consider the attached as we modified the manuscript based on your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented article has a scientific practical significance. The point of the study of social entrepreneurship is quite relevant issues for the development of social issues, small business. The article presents fairly complex arguments that allow taking into account practically the aspects that contribute and negative for the development of social entrepreneurship. However, the article would greatly benefit if
Derivation to designate a clear goal of research and the task. predetermine possible consideration of scientific and practical interests of the presented research
add a discussion section where the author could show their scientific and practical transformation before the previously reviewed publications of various scientists on this issue
conducting a literature review would be interesting to see digital material that shows the negative and conducive factors for social entrepreneurship
in conclusion, I would like to see at least a few recommendations that, based on the presented results of the study and the extensive analytics carried out by the authors on the development of social entrepreneurship, will point out how important it is to communicate and provide employment for people with disabilities in order to ensure a customer-oriented enterprise
Author Response
Thank you so much for your valuable comments. Please consider the attached as we modified the manuscript based on your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have seen you responses to the queries. The responses indicate that the authors are committed to the enhancement of the quality of the work. Nevertheless, there are a few critical issues on methodology and results/interpretation that must be resolved and they are sacrosanct to the study's inference. Please see the attached file for my detailed comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
I commend the authors for their response to the queries. The introduction section has been enhanced to include the research objectives. The authors have also made a good attempt at the articulation of the gap(s) in literature In fact, the authors responded to most of the queries. But I am not satisfied to their responses to the few queries below:
- However, they claimed that they could not reduce the number of hypotheses because of the need to keep the flow of the hypotheses. If that be the case, I suggest that they develop the hypotheses more convincingly and back up such development with adequate citations from extant studies
Thank you for your comments. We added in the limitations:
Existing research was also scarce in this area, as the researcher had limited sources on international and national literature related to the proposed topic. Consequently, more research is needed to enhance the hypotheses development, alongside with new venues.
- Methodology:The authors said “To obtain the purpose of this study, a convenient sampling technique was implemented” what does this mean? How do you obtain the purpose of the study?
- Given the explanation for the sample size determination,
We added: A sufficient sample size and certain sample characteristics must be taken into consideration. Some research suggest that the sample size must be a 15:1 ratio for the number of responses to the number of model items [32]; making the required sample size for 42 indicators to be 630 participants, which makes our sample size of 820 respondents to be exceeding the required threshold. However, not all participations were considered due to 55 unengaged responses, which came to be 765 participants, which also exceeds the minimum required sample size.
- what sampling technique did the authors employ? The authors failed to respond to this query. . . Did they select the area of study, organisations and respondents conveniently? While the choice of study area and organisations may be conveniently chosen in a study, it is not proper to select respondents from the conveniently chosen areas and organisations conveniently. There will be complete loss of randomness required to enhance representativeness
- It’s good that you have edited the “confirmatory factor” to ““Cronbach Alpha was used to confirm the stability or consistency of the results generated by the scale (McMurray et al., 2004).” . . . please remove the “stability” there. Yes, Cronbach’s alpha is used to test for consistency of the items in the questionnaire
We added: Cronbach Alpha was used to confirm the consistency of the results generated by the scale [28, 32]. All constructs were tested for reliability and Cronbach Alpha result was 0.95.
- It is nice that you have included the theoretical framework. The theoretical framework is not the same as the research design. The research design is the strategy of the research. Include a statement on the research design
We added: In accordance with past scholars and researchers, satisfaction is considered to be a central element of any marketing model [21]. It’s also well known that companies rely on their customers for profitability, in which companies are actively changing de-pending on customers’ demands. To fill the gap in literature a conceptual model was adapted from [24] research, and was then modified to fulfill the objectives of this re-search.
The response to this query “In table 4, in the multi group analysis for gender “H → S - 0.328 0.029 0.358 1.000 No difference” . . . . . . can the p value of 1.000 be true for H → S, given a difference of 0.358?” is not appropriate. The authors said “Since the numbers of Male and females are 309 and 456 respectively, which are large numbers, each “Difference in Betas” follows a normal distribution with mean zero and variance one. Hence for a two
sided test of the difference at 0.05 level of significance, accordingly, there is no difference if the calculated beta value lie between -1.96 and 1.96. Since each value of “difference n
beta” in the Table of Multi-group analysis for gender lies between these two cut points, there is no difference in each case. . . . . For the avoidance of doubt, beta is not a test statistic but a coefficient. Therefore, it is against statistical conventions to compare beta with the two tailed Z values. You are supposed to compare the computed Z statistic with that interval and I
and confident that the Z score will be outside the interval; (-1.96 < Z < 1.96) Arising from the foregoing, I insist that you include the coefficients, standard Errors, t or Z values and p values in table 4.10. These values will assist in checking the consistency of the results with statistical theory
- dd
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read the upgraded version of your paper, which in my opinion is ready for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read the upgraded version of your paper, which in my opinion is ready for publication.
Thank you so much.
