Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This is a quite interesting paper. I like the topic and I think is of paramount importane to understand which factors determine a complex phenomenon such as Job Satisfaction in Healthcare.

I think this paper needs to change and reorganization of the structure and some ideas. 

1. Introduction is ok but there are no references. You are describing the state of art, identifying the gap and so on. But it's only just a description of the paper. You should reply to why?

2. Theoretical part is ok, but I think it needs to resume all ideas with a model, a figure or a table for summarizing main ideas. No hypothesis and no research questions (these are included in the next section, why?). No model

3. Material and methods. Point 3.1. should be ereased from this part, Resesearch objectives and research questions have to be introduced in point 1 and explained/justified in point 2. 

In point 3.2. you don't need to explain typology of methods and basic thinks, I believe you have to focus on your population, the sample, explain how did you do all process of gathering data, which number of replies, is significant the sample, how questions are used and so on...

No questionnaire included!!

Just using a scale developed by Spector in 1997.

Methods section is poor.

Just using ANOVA. But we are in 2024!!!

Table of results from reliability is ok (alpha Cronbach)

Discussion, Conclusions and Lines of future of research also need to be linked with the state of art, with the contribution of the paper and with similar papers. 

This paper needs much more work for adding value to literature in job satisfaction.

Author Response

Please find attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to have the manuscript entitled "Sustainable Healthcare Quality and Job Satisfaction through Organizational Culture: Approaches and Outcomes for Healthcare Units". The study seems to be interesting, however it needs additional information and a reorganization and revision of some sections.

We suggest revising the title to make it shorter and more indicative of the study.

The first sentence of the abstract is unclear as to the purpose of the study.

A different structure of the abstract is proposed, consisting of the following sections: objective, method, results, discussion, implications

References are missing, for example the introduction doesn't have a single reference

Why the healthcare sector?

The problem behind the research objectives is not clear

The introduction of Green Lean Six 46 Sigma (GLSS) is unclear

If a dual method is applied, it is important to present the methodology of both, for instance as two studies.

The objectives in the introduction are repeated and then are not the same as those presented in the materials and methods section.

The methodology is very confusing. We suggest introducing references that methodologically support the design and methodology chosen.

How many items and information on the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS),

The characterization of the sample, the size of the sample and the data collection procedure are missing.

I don't understand how "internal marketing" was measured line 324

I don't understand how the GLSS is integrated into the results

Lacks information on limitations

To sum up, I had difficulties understanding the aim for the study, the constructs that were evaluated and how.

Author Response

Please find attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

thank you for your response. i believe the authors responded to all my questions. Good luck