Fairness in E-Recruitment: Examining Procedural Justice Perceptions and Job Seekers’ Intentions

Referee’s 1 Comment

Authors Reply

The manuscript presents a study about how corporate recruiting through website is interpreted by candidates and affects their will to apply. 

The study is not particularly original, yet it is well-done and can be accepted for publication with minor revisions. 

Thank you for your feedback.

I miss more details about the procedure and the websites. How they were selected? In what respect they differ from each other? 

Thank you for your feedback. We have added more details regarding the selection of the websites. Please view lines 246-258.

Questionnaires should be added as anneexes

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added an appendix with all the scales used in the study in the supplementary files section.

Referee’s 2 Comment

Authors Reply

Dear editor,

the paper entitled “Fairness in E-recruitment: Examining Procedural Justice Perceptions and Job Seekers' Intentions” examined the indirect relationship between opportunity to perform perceptions during recruitment and  intentions to apply one month after visiting a company website, mediated by organizational attractiveness and ITA measured immediately after and one week after the website visit. Participants consisted of 260 psychology master's students.

The manuscript follows a traditional scientific paper structure. The authors introduced the topic, outlining their research hypotheses. The methodology and results were then presented in the central part of the paper. Finally, the authors discussed the implications of the findings for both theory and practice, as well as the limitations of the study.

Here are some suggestions to improve the article:

Thanks for your feedback.

1. Lines 97, 160, and 249: Please check and correct the references.

Thank you, we have revised these references.

Lines 229-233: This section is unclear. Please elaborate further.

Thanks for noticing; we have revised that section and hopefully increased its clarity and added a table for descriptive demographical variables. . To protect the anonymity of our participants, we made the deliberate choice not to collect exact age data, as doing so could have potentially compromised their privacy. Instead, we categorized participants into broader age groups (20-23, 24-27, and 28-31). This strategy allowed us to maintain confidentiality while still ensuring the integrity of our demographic analysis. We hope this clarifies our approach, and we truly appreciate your insightful feedback

Line 230: The authors state, "Most of the sample (71.32%) were between 20 and 23 years old." It would be helpful to include the total sample age (mean and standard deviation).

Thank you for your suggestion. As indicate in the previous comment, we made the deliberate choice not to collect exact age data, as doing so could have potentially compromised their privacy.

Materials and Methods section: The authors could describe how they maintained anonymity and matched protocols across administrations (e.g., did students use personal codes?).

Thank you for your suggestion. To ensure anonymity throughout data collection, we will use alphanumeric codes to link responses collected at different times. Additionally, to protect participants' privacy, we opted not to request their exact age, as disclosing individual ages could potentially compromise anonymity. We have also included this information in the text for clarity. Please see lines 270-272.

Line 278: Cronbach's alpha is mentioned both here and in Table 1. The authors might consider removing it from this paragraph.

Thanks, we have removed the reliability value in the text, just leaving a reference to the table.

Line 513: The authors write "1.2. Figures, Tables and Schemes." The paragraph numbering could be removed, and it would be more accurate to write "Tables and Figure" as there are no schemes. The authors may consider placing the tables and figure directly within the text, depending on journal guidelines and their preferences.

Thank you, we have removed the caption. Also, in line with the MDPI instructions for authors, we followed your suggestion and moved the figure and the tables up in the text.

Table 1: I suggest the authors use a period instead of a comma and round to two decimal places. Additionally, the note "Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001" seems inconsistent with the table as there are no * or ***. Only " * p < .01" might be needed.

We have corrected this, thank you.

Table 2: The note "Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001" is inconsistent with the table as there are no asterisks.

We have removed it, thank you.

Lines 657-691: This section should be removed

Thanks for noticing that, we have removed it

Referee’s 3 Comment

Authors Reply

Dear authors, thank you for the opportunity to get acquainted with the results of your study.

The strengths of the study are the validity of the methodology, the representativeness of the sample, the use of validated methods, the correlation of the research results with the studies of other authors, the development of practical recommendations and the designation of future research directions.

There are comments on the manuscript:

Thanks for your feedback

1. It is necessary to clarify the description of the research procedure by indicating which variables were controlled in this experiment? Indicate how long the subjects were familiar with the company websites? How did the researchers control the correctness of familiarization with the websites (what exactly was taken into account)?

Thank you, for your suggestions. To clarify the research procedure, we controlled for familiarity with the company websites by having participants rate their knowledge on a 7-point scale. Each participant spent 5/8 minutes interacting with each website, while a researcher monitored the process to ensure accurate and consistent familiarization (line 274). These measures were implemented to ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected. Furthermore, we have added familiarity as covariate to control its effects.

2. The results of the study do not indicate full descriptive statistics for the sample of subjects. This should be added, and not just a general description.

Thanks, we have added a table with descriptive statistics of the demographic variables. To protect the anonymity of our participants, we made the deliberate choice not to collect exact age data, as doing so could have potentially compromised their privacy. Instead, we categorized participants into broader age groups (20-23, 24-27, and 28-31). This strategy allowed us to maintain confidentiality while still ensuring the integrity of our demographic analysis. We hope this clarifies our approach, and we truly appreciate your insightful feedback

3. The results section should be expanded with a description of the results themselves. Also, can the authors include information about the websites themselves, which were assessed more positively and negatively? How did they differ, are there any generalizations?

Thanks, we have added a table with descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for the main variables analyzed for each company. Please see table 3 (line 363).

4. A Conclusion section should be added and the findings of the study should be briefly outlined.

We have added the conclusion section, thank you

5. the article design does not correspond to the journal template.

Thanks for your suggestion. The article’s template was obtained from the last version of Sustainability site, where it is listed as the official template.

Referee’s 4 Comment

Authors Reply

The manuscript appears to be a good fit for Sustainability. It addresses relevant social sustainability issues, employs a rigorous methodological approach, and has potential practical implications for sustainable organizational practices. It focus on the impact of procedural justice perceptions in e-recruitment on job seekers’ intentions, which aligns with the broader themes of social sustainability and organizational behavior.

Thanks for your feedback

  The theoretical background provided in the manuscript is well-developed and aligns with the study’s objectives. It effectively outlines how perceptions of Opportunity to Perform (OPP) influence Organizational Attractiveness (OA) and subsequently shape Intentions to Apply (ITA) at different intervals following website interaction. By establishing these causal connections, the manuscript underscores the enduring impact of these relationships over time, thereby enhancing recruitment practices and organizational outcomes.  

Thanks for your feedback

Suggestions for improvement: The manuscript provides a description of the participants and the data collection process. However, it seems to lack information on the sampling method used to select the participants. Including details about the sampling method is crucial for understanding the representativeness and generalizability of the study’s findings.
You should include information on how the participants were selected. For example, were they chosen randomly, or was it a convenience sample? Clarifying this aspect will strengthen the manuscript by providing a clearer picture of the study’s methodology.

Thanks for your suggestions, we have specified in the study that participants sampling method. Please see lines 229 – 234.

  It’s very important for authors to follow the Instructions for Authors provided by MDPI. Adhering to these guidelines ensures that the manuscript meets the journal’s standards

Thanks for your suggestion. The article’s template was obtained from the latest version found in Sustainability site, where it is listed as the official template.