Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research is relevant and important, especially in the context of growing digitalization and a focus on employee well-being. The cross-cultural comparison of Poland and Italy adds value. It is possible to deepen the discussion of the theoretical foundations, expand the discussion of limitations and opportunities for future research. Make sure that terminology (such as "organizational trust") is used consistently and clearly for an international audience. Consider using the term "organizational trust" instead of "organizational trust" for more clarity. In the abstract, specify the sample size and description of the sample (who exactly was interviewed, for example, the position level, work experience). Please indicate which statistical methods were used to analyze the data. Emphasize the novelty of the conclusions. What is new in this study compared to previous work? Specific offers: 1. Use "organizational trust" instead of "organizational trust". 2. Specify which aspects of digital well-being have been studied (for example, work-life balance, digital addiction, digital competence). 3. Give examples of "transparent communications," "career development initiatives," and "proactive digital well-being strategies." 4. Consider including a section with recommendations for companies based on the research results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Make sure that terminology (such as "organizational trust") is used consistently and clearly for an international audience.

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 1!

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

The research is relevant and important, especially in the context of growing digitalization and a focus on employee well-being. The cross-cultural comparison of Poland and Italy adds value.

Thank you very much for your positive feedback. We truly appreciate your recognition of the relevance of our research and the added value of the cross-cultural comparison between Poland and Italy. Your comments are encouraging and motivating for our ongoing work in this important area.

 

It is possible to deepen the discussion of the theoretical foundations, expand the discussion of limitations and opportunities for future research.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have expanded the discussion of the theoretical foundations by more clearly articulating the conceptual links between organizational trust, eudaimonic well-being, and digital well-being, with reference to Social Exchange Theory and recent literature. We have also substantially revised and enriched the “Limitations and Future Research” paragraph by including additional methodological considerations, cross-cultural reflections, and proposals for exploring mediating and moderating variables such as leadership behaviors and organizational climate. These additions aim to provide a more comprehensive and forward-looking discussion.

 

Make sure that terminology (such as "organizational trust") is used consistently and clearly for an international audience. Consider using the term "organizational trust" instead of "organizational trust" for more clarity.

Thank you for the suggestion. We carefully reviewed the terminology used in the manuscript and confirmed that the term "organizational trust" is now used consistently throughout the text. We also made sure to define it clearly for an international audience to avoid any potential ambiguity.

 

In the abstract, specify the sample size and description of the sample (who exactly was interviewed, for example, the position level, work experience).

Thank you for your helpful comment. We have revised the abstract to include a clear description of the sample, specifying the number of participants, their professional roles, and work context.

 

Please indicate which statistical methods were used to analyze the data.

Thank you for your observation. We have revised Section 2.5 to explicitly indicate the statistical methods used in the analysis, including descriptive statistics, the Shapiro-Wilk test for normality, Pearson correlation coefficients, linear regression models, and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with specified extraction and rotation methods. We hope this clarification improves the transparency and rigor of the methodological section.

 

Emphasize the novelty of the conclusions. What is new in this study compared to previous work?

Thank you for your valuable comment. At the beginning of the Discussion section, we have now explicitly emphasized the novelty of our contribution. In particular, we highlight how our study uniquely combines the investigation of organizational trust with both eudaimonic and digital well-being, across two national contexts. This dual focus and comparative design represent a significant extension of prior research, which has rarely examined these dimensions together or cross-culturally.

 

Specific offers: 1. Use "organizational trust" instead of "organizational trust".

Thank you for the suggestion. We believe there may have been a typo in the comment, as the proposed replacement appears to be identical to the original term ("organizational trust"). If the intention was to suggest a different or more precise term, we would be grateful for further clarification. In any case, we have reviewed the manuscript to ensure that the term "organizational trust" is used consistently and clearly throughout.

 

2. Specify which aspects of digital well-being have been studied (for example, work-life balance, digital addiction, digital competence).

Thank you for your comment. We would like to clarify that our study did not directly measure digital well-being through a specific scale or instrument. Rather, digital well-being is discussed as a key contextual framework of the research, in line with the aims of the Special Issue call. As indicated in the abstract, introduction, and discussion, the focus of the empirical analysis is on eudaimonic well-being, while digital well-being is conceptually explored in relation to organizational trust. Therefore, our references to digital well-being serve to enrich the theoretical background and to align the study with current debates on sustainable digital workplaces, rather than to present it as a directly measured construct.

 

3. Give examples of "transparent communications," "career development initiatives," and "proactive digital well-being strategies."

Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to include concrete examples of “transparent communication,” “career development initiatives,” and “proactive digital well-being strategies.” These additions clarify how organizations can translate the study’s findings into practical actions, such as regular team briefings, mentoring programs, and digital detox policies. We hope this improves the applicability and clarity of the practical implications starting from the introduction.

 

4. Consider including a section with recommendations for companies based on the research results.

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have now included a set of practical recommendations for companies, based on the research findings, at the end of the implications section. These recommendations specify concrete actions organizations can take to foster both organizational trust and digital well-being, particularly in digitally intensive work environments. We hope this addition strengthens the practical relevance of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Organizational Trust as a Driver of Eudaimonic and Digital Well-being in IT Professionals: A Cross-Cultural Study" to the journal. The topic of organizational trust and well-being in IT professionals is timely and relevant. However, after a detailed review, I find that the manuscript does not meet the necessary standards for publication in its current form. Below are my detailed comments:

 

1. While the topic of organizational trust and its influence on well-being is of academic interest, the study lacks significant innovation. The research fails to present a novel theoretical contribution or offer new perspectives compared to existing literature. The cross-cultural comparison between Poland and Italy, though valuable, does not bring new insights that significantly advance the field.
2. The tables and figures presented in the manuscript are inconsistent in terms of formatting. This lack of uniformity detracts from the scholarly quality of the paper and reduces its professionalism. A thorough review of formatting guidelines is necessary to improve the presentation and academic rigor of the manuscript.
3. The study employs a basic quantitative approach using structured questionnaires and regression models, but it lacks a deeper methodological exploration. There is insufficient discussion on why the chosen methodology is the most appropriate for this type of study, nor does it consider alternative research methods that could provide more in-depth insights. Additionally, the paper does not sufficiently address potential limitations in the research design, particularly the sample size and representativeness of the data.

 

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 2!

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

 

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Organizational Trust as a Driver of Eudaimonic and Digital Well-being in IT Professionals: A Cross-Cultural Study" to the journal. The topic of organizational trust and well-being in IT professionals is timely and relevant. However, after a detailed review, I find that the manuscript does not meet the necessary standards for publication in its current form. Below are my detailed comments:

 We sincerely thank you for your time and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your recognition of the relevance of the topic and have carefully addressed all the comments provided in your detailed review. The manuscript has been revised accordingly to improve clarity, methodological transparency, and practical relevance. We hope the changes made will meet the standards required for publication.

 

1. While the topic of organizational trust and its influence on well-being is of academic interest, the study lacks significant innovation. The research fails to present a novel theoretical contribution or offer new perspectives compared to existing literature. The cross-cultural comparison between Poland and Italy, though valuable, does not bring new insights that significantly advance the field.

Thank you for your feedback. In response to your comment regarding the novelty of the study, we have strengthened the introduction to better emphasize the original contribution of our work. Specifically, we now highlight how this research offers an integrative perspective by examining both eudaimonic and digital well-being within a unified framework—an approach that remains rare in the literature. Furthermore, we clarify that the cross-cultural comparison between Poland and Italy is not only descriptive but serves to explore how differing organizational, economic, and cultural contexts influence the relationship between organizational trust and well-being. This comparative angle offers new empirical insights into the contextual variability of the trust–well-being link, which we believe contributes meaningfully to the literature on organizational behavior and social sustainability.

 

2. The tables and figures presented in the manuscript are inconsistent in terms of formatting. This lack of uniformity detracts from the scholarly quality of the paper and reduces its professionalism. A thorough review of formatting guidelines is necessary to improve the presentation and academic rigor of the manuscript.

Thank you for your feedback. All tables in the article have been re-prepared and adjusted to the formal requirements of the journal.

 

1. The study employs a basic quantitative approach using structured questionnaires and regression models, but it lacks a deeper methodological exploration. There is insufficient discussion on why the chosen methodology is the most appropriate for this type of study, nor does it consider alternative research methods that could provide more in-depth insights.

Thank you for this helpful comment. We have revised Section 2.4 to explain why a quantitative, structured survey was chosen as the most suitable method for our research goals. We also acknowledged the value of alternative methods—such as interviews or mixed-method approaches—for capturing more in-depth insights, and suggested these as promising avenues for future research.

 

1. Additionally, the paper does not sufficiently address potential limitations in the research design, particularly the sample size and representativeness of the data.

Thank you for your important observation. In response, we have revised the Limitations paragraph to explicitly address concerns regarding sample size and representativeness. While our sample provided adequate statistical power, we now acknowledge that the recruitment from specific public sector organizations may limit the generalizability of our findings. We have suggested directions for future research that involve more diverse and representative sampling strategies to strengthen external validity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study examines the relationship between organizational trust, eudaimonic well-being, and digital well-being among IT professionals in Poland and Italy. There are some areas that need improvement.

1. In the introduction to the section, it is recommended to address the research gap explicitly.
2. The introduction is quite long and tires the reader. The 6th paragraph (Line 81) and the 7th paragraph (Line 91) mention the purpose of the research and are repetitive. These two paragraphs should be combined.
3. In the introduction, the 8th paragraph (Line 103) and 9th paragraph (Line 112) mention the contributions of the research. However, mentioning these contributions without presenting the research findings is against the logic of the research. It would be appropriate to present these contributions under the Contributions heading.
4. The results of the study are presented in the introduction (Line 104-108). It would be better to clearly state the differences between previous studies and this study rather than the results of the study in the introduction.
5. The practical contributions of the study are mentioned in the introduction (Line 129), but these contributions should be given after the research findings are presented under the Contributions heading.
6. There are generally inconsistencies in the flow of paragraphs in the introduction. It would be appropriate to move the last 2 paragraphs above Line 81.
7. Adding a Literature Review section to the study is important in terms of ensuring the depth of the study.
8. It would be appropriate for the flow of the article to provide the justifications for the hypotheses after the Literature Review before the Method title.
9. The expression ‘Italy: The sample mirrored the Polish group in terms of gender distribution (female 39%, male 61%)’ seems ambitious (Line 258). It would be appropriate to change the expression. Because in the Polish sample, the rates are (female 48%, male 52%).
10. The lines in Table 1 are shifted. It is recommended to edit.
11. Presenting Table 5 as two separate tables (Italy and Poland) will make it easier to understand.
12. The discussion section is good and shows the results of each method.

Author Response

Dear REVIEWER 3!

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted file.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

 

The study examines the relationship between organizational trust, eudaimonic well-being, and digital well-being among IT professionals in Poland and Italy. There are some areas that need improvement.

Thank you for your comments and for highlighting key areas for improvement. We appreciate your engagement with our work and have carefully revised the manuscript to address the points raised. Your feedback has been very helpful in refining the quality and clarity of the study.

 

1. In the introduction to the section, it is recommended to address the research gap explicitly.

Thank you for your suggestion. We acknowledge the importance of clearly articulating the research gap, and we respectfully note that this aspect is already addressed in the introduction. Specifically, we highlight the lack of research on eudaimonic well-being (as opposed to short-term job satisfaction), the scarcity of cross-cultural studies within the European IT sector, and the limited exploration of organizational trust in relation to both eudaimonic and digital well-being. These elements were included to clearly position our study within the existing literature and to justify its contribution.

 

1. The introduction is quite long and tires the reader. The 6th paragraph (Line 81) and the 7th paragraph (Line 91) mention the purpose of the research and are repetitive. These two paragraphs should be combined.

Thank you for your observation regarding the length and structure of the introduction. In response, we have revised the section to reduce redundancy and improve clarity, while preserving the depth of content and all bibliographic references. Specifically, we streamlined overlapping paragraphs, simplified the language, and enhanced the logical flow to ensure greater readability without compromising the theoretical and contextual grounding of the study. We hope the revised version will meet the expectations for clarity and conciseness.

 

1. In the introduction, the 8th paragraph (Line 103) and 9th paragraph (Line 112) mention the contributions of the research. However, mentioning these contributions without presenting the research findings is against the logic of the research. It would be appropriate to present these contributions under the Contributions heading. 4. The results of the study are presented in the introduction (Line 104-108). It would be better to clearly state the differences between previous studies and this study rather than the results of the study in the introduction. 5- The practical contributions of the study are mentioned in the introduction (Line 129), but these contributions should be given after the research findings are presented under the Contributions heading.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. While we understand the concern raised, we respectfully disagree with the suggestion to remove the contributions from the introduction. It is a widely accepted practice in academic writing—particularly in journals focused on organizational studies and applied social sciences—to briefly outline both the theoretical and practical contributions at the end of the introduction. This helps position the study within the existing literature and clarify its relevance from the outset. We have therefore chosen to retain this structure, while ensuring that the main findings are presented and discussed in detail in the Results and Discussion sections.

 

1. There are generally inconsistencies in the flow of paragraphs in the introduction. It would be appropriate to move the last 2 paragraphs above Line 81.

 

1. Adding a Literature Review section to the study is important in terms of ensuring the depth of the study.

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have created a dedicated section titled “Theoretical Background and Hypotheses” to strengthen the structure and analytical depth of the paper. This new section expands upon the key concepts of eudaimonic well-being, digital well-being, and organizational trust, and provides a detailed discussion of the relevant literature. Additionally, the integration of Social Exchange Theory and the concept of psychological safety helps ground the study in well-established theoretical frameworks. We believe this revision clarifies the foundations of our hypotheses and enhances the overall scholarly rigor of the manuscript.

 

1. It would be appropriate for the flow of the article to provide the justifications for the hypotheses after the Literature Review before the Method title.

Thank you for this helpful recommendation. We have revised the manuscript structure to follow a more conventional academic flow. Specifically, the hypotheses are now clearly justified within the new “Theoretical Background and Hypotheses” section, which directly precedes the Method section. This allows for a more logical progression from the literature to the empirical strategy and ensures that the hypotheses are explicitly grounded in prior research. We hope this reorganization will improve the clarity and coherence of the paper.

 

1. The expression ‘Italy: The sample mirrored the Polish group in terms of gender distribution (female 39%, male 61%)’ seems ambitious (Line 258). It would be appropriate to change the expression. Because in the Polish sample, the rates are (female 48%, male 52%).

Thank you for pointing out the discrepancy in the gender distribution. We have revised the sentence to better reflect the actual figures, replacing the phrase “mirrored the Polish group” with a more accurate description that acknowledges the slight difference between the two samples. We hope this adjustment clarifies the comparison and improves the precision of the demographic description.

 

1. The lines in Table 1 are shifted. It is recommended to edit.

Thank you for your feedback. All tables in the article have been re-prepared and adjusted to the formal requirements of the journal.

 

1. Presenting Table 5 as two separate tables (Italy and Poland) will make it easier to understand.

Thank you for this helpful recommendation. The previous Table 5 has been split into two separate tables (Italy and Poland).

 

1. The discussion section is good and shows the results of each method.

Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript. However, the manuscript still fails to reach the publication standards due to research design.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the suggested edits. I agree to its publication.