Assessment of Performance Measurement Systems’ Ability to Mitigate or Eliminate Typical Barriers Compromising Organisational Sustainability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study attempts to reveal the importance of Performance Measurement Systems in mitigating or eliminating the several barriers that can hinder their effectiveness. The authors illustrate the barriers most and least addressed by existing Performance Measurement Systems and provide a basis for selecting the best tools and practices. Their effort is interesting but requires some revisions to be published in Sustainability.
1. The abstract should be more concise. The authors should rewrite it to present the main results of their study.
2. The authors should briefly discuss the term sustainable development in their introduction, as PMSs are associated with sustainability in the authors’ discussion. In this vein, the following two papers should be included: "Broad strokes towards a grand theory in the analysis of sustainable development: a return to the classical political economy", New Political Economy, 27(5), pp. 866-878, and (b) "The concept of sustainable development: From its beginning to the contemporary issues", Zagreb International Review of Economics & Business, 21(1), 67-94.
3. It would be helpful to discuss how the main barriers to PMS's effectiveness are associated with difficulties in the transition to sustainability.
4. It would be helpful to show how each barrier's mitigation or elimination is associated with SDGs, as presented in the paper’s introduction. This association would be helpful in typifying policy implications.
5. What are the limitations of this study?
6. The authors should add a section to discuss the theoretical implications of their study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsthe main aim of this study concerns an in-depth analysis based on PRISMA methodology of the current Performance Measurement Systems presented by researchers nowadays and their capabilities in mitigating or eliminating the several barriers that can hinder their effectiveness.
The novelty consists in the effort of identifying the better approaches among the studied ones.
The value added consists in the effort done to classify and analyse the current used methodologies
In the field of personnel evaluation there is a foggy situation because each organization especially larger ones have its own distinct local culture thus the multidimensional level variations are high. As the result most of the studies concerning the problem consists in general mostly common sense based studies about how the job may be done but without to many details
the conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main aim of the presented study
the references as good
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe scientific novelty of the article is poorly argued in the introductory part. In the analysis of this topic, it would be useful to discuss the practical applicability of the new results.
It is not clear why the part of scientific literature analysis was abandoned. It would really enrich and complement this article. The research part is dominated by statements, although we would like to have deeper insights from the authors. The article refers to only a few additional sources of information, while the majority of the sources used were used only to perform the analysis using the chosen methodology.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper developed by the authors is entitled “Assessment of Performance Measurement Systems ability to 2mitigate or eliminate typical barriers compromising their effectiveness”, which identified the Performance Measurement Systems (PMS) documented in the existing literature and their capabilities in mitigating or eliminating the several barriers that can hinder their effectiveness. The paper is meaningful, but it is not well written, which needs to improve. My attitude is “Major Revision”. Some comments upon this paper are given as follows.
1. It is better to have a flow chart that clearly shows the entire paper.
2. The contribution of this paper is not clear, which should be highly described.
3. The conclusion is not concise enough.
4. Please review the recent research on the studies of measurement system application, such as:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2023.02.005
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt can be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSomehow, the paper title is not fully precise. It seems like it is not finished. You may add something like “for organizational sustainability” Your abstract looks more like an introduction. Please rewrite it to summarize your paper, stating what is the paper about, which method you used, and what are the findings, practical implications, and limitations. Within the introduction, the objective of the study is clear. You presented the results of the methods in Table 4. Classification of PMS according to their capacity to mitigate or eliminate each barrier. You mentioned these barriers within the introduction. I suggest you somehow clarify these barriers within the methodology section. You should also precisely describe the method of how you classified Table 4. For me, this part is not explained well in the methodology. The discussion section is very comprehensive. Within the conclusion, please discuss practical implications.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors addressed my previous comments and improved their manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of the English language is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease answer the previous comments in detail.
1. The flow chart in figure 1 is too simple.
2. The conclusion are still not concise enough.
3. Please specify which new recent references have been cited.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageIt can be improved.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is modified.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNo
