Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have chosen a very relevant research topic related to the problem of employee burnout in the hospitality industry. The authors analyse the psychological capital and the role of organisational support for human resources in the hospitality industry, where the importance of human resources is much higher compared to other types of resources. The authors have conducted a study, the results of which are of practical value, primarily of a local nature, and also, in the opinion of the reviewer, the results of the study contain practical novelty. The hypotheses put forward by the authors are correct. The conceptual model of the study developed by the authors can be positively noted. The processing and analysis of the results of the survey conducted by the authors, as well as the directions for further research put forward by the authors at the end of the article are positively assessed. The recommendations of the authors to managers and decision makers in the hospitality sector put forward in the article are positively evaluated.

In the reviewer's opinion, the authors could more clearly draw conclusions about the confirmation/refutation of the hypotheses of the study.

Overall, the article is very interesting.

Author Response

Dear Editor, Reviewers

Thank you so much for taking the time to consider our recent submission. We greatly appreciate your thorough assessment and valuable feedback. We were particularly glad to read your positive comments about the strengths of our work. Your acknowledgment of the comprehensive research and organization is encouraging, as we put a lot of effort into ensuring the accuracy and clarity of our paper.

Regarding your suggestions for improvement, we wholeheartedly agree with your observation regarding the need for improvement to better illustrate our findings.

We also appreciate your recommendations for further literature review. We understand the importance of expanding our knowledge base and exploring additional sources related to our topic.

Overall, we are grateful for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable input.

We look forward to revising our resubmission according to your suggestions and your review.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or comments.

Best regards

Dr.Musaddag Elrayah

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, Dear Editor,

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting study. The topic is undoubtedly valid, but there are some things that need to be improved:

1)     The Introduction section covers the main topic, but I didn’t find a clear definition of the theoretical and methodological gap this study wants to fill. It was only mentioned that “study tries and aims to highlight the existing role played by PsyCap to shape and modify the relationship between organizational support and job burnout. It will be expected to contribute to the current gap in the previous literature”( (p. 2, line 76 – 77) – but it has not been clearly explained what that gap is? Hence, the contribution is unclear.

2)     Taking into account the research results referred to in subsection 2.2 (rather relation of the studied variables than impact) it would be considered to reformulate hypothesis H3 as follows: “Psychological capital is negatively related to the job burnout”.

3)     As the sampling technique was based on availability and willingness of participants, it was rather convenient than purposive sampling.

4)     In Recommendations Discussion section a number of recommendations for managers were formulated. The application value of the work is important but the obtained results should lead to the final provisions expanding the theoretical provisions of the theoretical approach and methodology followed by the Authors. Theoretical implications should precede practical implications. In Discussion and Conclusion section it should be clearly stated what new Authors' research brings to the development of science.

5)     The limitations of the study were not indicated. Each model is only an approximation of the market reality. I suggest considering what limitations and how they might have influenced the obtained research results.

 

Good luck

Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Editor, Reviewers

Thank you so much for taking the time to consider our recent submission. We greatly appreciate your thorough assessment and valuable feedback. We were particularly glad to read your positive comments about the strengths of our work. Your acknowledgment of the comprehensive research and organization is encouraging, as we put a lot of effort into ensuring the accuracy and clarity of our paper.

Regarding your suggestions for improvement, we wholeheartedly agree with your observation regarding the need for improvement to better illustrate our findings.

We also appreciate your recommendations for further literature review. We understand the importance of expanding our knowledge base and exploring additional sources related to our topic.

Overall, we are grateful for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable input.

We look forward to revising our resubmission according to your suggestions and your review.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or comments.

Best regards

Dr.Musaddag Elrayah

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript describes a study examining the relationship between organizational support and burnout among hospitality working in Egypt.  The authors also examine Psychological Capital as a mediator of this relationship.  All hypotheses were supported.  Just a few comments.

1.  Throughout the manuscript the authors state that Psychological Capital is a moderator, but in the model tested, it is a mediator.  

2.  Related to Point #1, if the intent is to examine Psychological Capital is a mediator the authors should present stronger evidence that is can be modified.

3.  One strength of this study is that it was conducted in in the hospitality sector; however, I think the authors need to provide stronger evidence that the prevalence of burnout is higher for these employees.  I'm also wonder whether the results of the study would have been any different if other types of employees (e.g., healthcare) were sampled?

4.  A major limitation of the study was that all data were collected at one point in time.  The authors should at least acknowledge this, and perhaps even test alternative models.

5.  This is a relatively minor point, but there should be a summary statement of the study findings in the Abstract.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

None

Author Response

Dear Editor, Reviewers

Thank you so much for taking the time to consider our recent submission. We greatly appreciate your thorough assessment and valuable feedback. We were particularly glad to read your positive comments about the strengths of our work. Your acknowledgment of the comprehensive research and organization is encouraging, as we put a lot of effort into ensuring the accuracy and clarity of our paper.

Regarding your suggestions for improvement, we wholeheartedly agree with your observation regarding the need for improvement to better illustrate our findings.

We also appreciate your recommendations for further literature review. We understand the importance of expanding our knowledge base and exploring additional sources related to our topic.

Overall, we are grateful for your thoughtful and constructive feedback.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable input.

We look forward to revising our resubmission according to your suggestions and your review.

Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or comments.

Best regards

Dr.Musaddag Elrayah

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I think the authors have been very responsive to my comments.  In particular, I think they have made a better case for the need to study burnout on the hospitality sector which I think is one of the main strengths of the paper.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your comments and recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx