Perfectionism and Workaholism as Barriers to Lifelong Learning and Occupational Sustainability: A Cross-Professional Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study shed light on a very important topic and provided an in-depth analysis. Thank you for investing efforts and time in this study, please consider: 

1- highlight the rationale of this study 

2- Highlight the impact of this study on policy making 

3- relate this study to SDG 17

4- Sample size is insufficient to draw a conclusion. However, given the importance of the study, we may consider it as a pilot assessment and large scale study should be planned in order to generalize the results

5- What was the recruitment plan for the study

6- Have you fulfilled ethical approvals? 

7- Explain the effect of interactive variable like working hours, gender, availability of occupational health and employees' wellness services 

Author Response

Thank you for the recommendations. In what follows, I will explain step by step each modification made to the manuscript.

Comment 1 - highlight the rationale of this study 

Response   1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have addressed this issue by strengthening the rationale of the study in three key locations: at the end of section 1.1. Context and Relevance, throughout section 1.2. Research Gap, and in the final paragraph of section 1.3. Aim and Objectives. These revisions emphasize the theoretical and practical relevance of investigating how perfectionism and workaholism jointly undermine lifelong learning and occupational sustainability. The additions are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2- Highlight the impact of this study on policy making 

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. We agree with your suggestion and have clarified the policy implications of our findings. Specifically, we added a new paragraph at the end of section 5.3 (Implications for SDG 3, SDG 4, and SDG 8) that outlines how our results can inform evidence-based policy making in the domains of occupational mental health, sustainable human capital development, and lifelong learning. Furthermore, we included an additional sentence at the end of the Conclusions section to emphasize the relevance of our findings for labor, health, and education policy agendas. All changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 3 - relate this study to SDG 17

Response 3: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. To address your comment, we have explicitly related our study to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by revising both the title and content of section 5.3, and by expanding the final paragraph in the Conclusions section. These revisions highlight how our findings support cross-sector collaboration among educational institutions, healthcare providers, and labor organizations, in alignment with SDG 17. Additionally, we have clearly stated the study’s contribution to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-Being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). All changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4- Sample size is insufficient to draw a conclusion. However, given the importance of the study, we may consider it as a pilot assessment and large scale study should be planned in order to generalize the results

Response 4: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We agree that the relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of the findings. In response, we have clarified this limitation at the end of section 5.4 (Limitations and Future Directions), where we now describe the study as an initial, pilot assessment. We have also added a final sentence in the Conclusions section to emphasize the exploratory nature of the study and the need for future large-scale research. All changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Comment 5- What was the recruitment plan for the study

 

Response 5: Thank you for your observation. We have now clarified the recruitment strategy in section 2.2 (Participants and Procedure). A detailed description of the recruitment channels, inclusion criteria, and consent procedure has been added to enhance the methodological transparency of the study. The revision is marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 6- Have you fulfilled ethical approvals? 

Response 6: Thank you for your question. Yes, ethical approval was obtained prior to data collection. The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National University of Science and Technology Politehnica Bucharest (approval number 93/03.02.2025). This is now clearly stated both in the methodology section and in the Institutional Review Board Statement at the end of the manuscript.

7- Explain the effect of interactive variable like working hours, gender, availability of occupational health and employees' wellness services

Response 7: Thank you for your suggestion. We agree that contextual and organizational factors such as working hours, gender, and access to occupational wellness services may influence workaholism and lifelong learning. While these variables were not the primary focus of the study, we did include working hours and gender as demographic covariates in the initial regression models. However, they did not show significant effects and were excluded through a stepwise selection procedure. This clarification has been added at the end of subsection 3.4, and we have acknowledged the importance of exploring these interactive variables in future research.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This study investigates the predictive role of perfectionism and professional workaholism, with a cross-sectional quantitative design involved 105 participants, and four regression models tested the influence of the three perfectionism facets and profession on overall workaholism and its subdimensions. However, these aspects maybe considered in further revisions.

 

1. The research question in this article is not clearly pointed out. Some key concepts have not been clearly defined, such as occupational sustainability, continuous learning, psychological well-being, etc. In addition, the research gap in this article is insufficiently demonstrated, and there is a clear lack of discussion and summary of key literature.

 

2. This article provides a relatively brief review and summary of existing research, lacking a systematic review and in-depth analysis of relevant literature.

 

3. In terms of empirical model design, the selection criteria for variables can be further explained. For example, why choose some variables as covariate variables.

 

4. The discussion in terms of analysis and results in this article appears to lack depth. Although this article reports on the regression results, the explanation of the mechanisms and results of each variable is relatively simple, lacking a deeper exploration and analysis of the theoretical basis and practical significance behind them.

 

5. In terms of management insights, the specific suggestions proposed in this article may need to be more targeted and supported by empirical results as much as possible.

Author Response

Thank you for the recommendations. In what follows, I will explain step by step each modification made to the manuscript.

Comment 1: The research question in this article is not clearly pointed out. Some key concepts have not been clearly defined, such as occupational sustainability, continuous learning, psychological well-being, etc. In addition, the research gap in this article is insufficiently demonstrated, and there is a clear lack of discussion and summary of key literature.

Response 1: Thank you for this important observation. We agree that the initial version of the manuscript did not clearly articulate the research question, define key concepts, or sufficiently demonstrate the research gap. We have addressed these issues in the revised manuscript as follows:

1. The research question is now explicitly stated at the end of Section 1.2 (Research Gap);
2. Key concepts—namely occupational sustainability, continuous learning, and psychological well-being—are now clearly defined in Section 1.1 to ensure conceptual clarity for the reader.
3. The research gap has been expanded and clarified in Section 1.2 by identifying specific gaps in the existing literature and by highlighting the need for an integrative, cross-professional approach to studying perfectionism, workaholism, and lifelong learning.
4. We have strengthened the discussion of key literature by adding recent and relevant studies that examine the psychological mechanisms affecting professional adaptability, as well as empirical findings that support our theoretical framework.

All these revisions are marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 2: This article provides a relatively brief review and summary of existing research, lacking a systematic review and in-depth analysis of relevant literature.

Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important observation. In response, we have significantly expanded Section 2 (Theoretical Background) to include a more systematic and in-depth analysis of the relevant literature. Specifically:

• At the beginning of Section 2, we now provide a clear preview statement outlining the section’s structure and analytical scope:
  “This section offers a structured theoretical background that synthesizes and critically analyzes the key literature related to perfectionism, workaholism, organizational health, and lifelong learning, establishing the conceptual foundation of the present study.”
• In Section 2.1, we added recent meta-analytic and cross-cultural findings that differentiate the psychological consequences of the three dimensions of perfectionism, thus strengthening the analytical clarity of this subsection.
• In Section 2.2, we integrated longitudinal and sector-specific studies to reinforce the conceptual relevance of psychosocial safety climate and to demonstrate its mediating role in work–life balance and sustainable HRM.
• In Section 2.3, we revised the discussion of psycho-behavioral barriers to lifelong learning by incorporating recent empirical studies, thus providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the cognitive and emotional constraints associated with workaholism.

These additions reflect a more systematic and cross-disciplinary literature review, with explicit inclusion of longitudinal research, meta-analyses, and studies from diverse professional contexts. Our aim was to go beyond summarizing previous findings and instead develop a conceptually integrated and evidence-based framework that directly supports the study’s hypotheses.

We hope these improvements address the reviewer’s concerns and enhance the scholarly rigor and relevance of our theoretical foundation. All these revisions are marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 3: In terms of empirical model design, the selection criteria for variables can be further explained. For example, why choose some variables as covariate variables.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this observation. To address the comment, we have revised Section 3.4 to clearly justify the inclusion of demographic covariates (age, gender, marital status, overtime). These variables were selected based on recent literature showing their relevance to workaholism, perfectionism, and learning engagement (e.g., van Woerkom, 2023; Madigan, 2018; Yu, 2022). We now explicitly state that these covariates were included to control for confounding effects and were retained in the regression models only if statistically significant. This improves model transparency and reinforces the empirical rationale behind variable selection. All these revisions are marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 4: The discussion in terms of analysis and results in this article appears to lack depth. Although this article reports on the regression results, the explanation of the mechanisms and results of each variable is relatively simple, lacking a deeper exploration and analysis of the theoretical basis and practical significance behind them.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. In response, we have substantially expanded the Discussion section (5.1–5.3) to provide a deeper theoretical and practical interpretation of the regression findings. Specifically, we now explain the distinct mechanisms by which each perfectionism dimension (self-oriented, socially prescribed, and other-oriented) influences excessive and compulsive workaholism. We have integrated relevant theoretical frameworks such as personality theory and self-determination theory to clarify the cognitive-emotional pathways involved. Furthermore, we emphasized the practical implications of these mechanisms for evidence-based interventions, sustainable HRM strategies, and SDG-aligned policy recommendations. We believe that these revisions address the request for greater analytical depth and strengthen the scholarly contribution of the study. All these revisions are marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 5: In terms of management insights, the specific suggestions proposed in this article may need to be more targeted and supported by empirical results as much as possible.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to strengthen the managerial relevance of our recommendations. In response, we have explicitly stated in the section 5.3. that the proposed measures are directly derived from the differentiated empirical effects of the three perfectionism dimensions. This clarification reinforces the targeted nature of the interventions and highlights their alignment with both theoretical models and observed results. All these revisions are marked in red in the updated manuscript.

 

Thank you for your observation regarding the clarity of the English expression. In response, the manuscript has undergone a careful language review to enhance precision, fluency, and readability. Minor revisions were made throughout the text to ensure that key arguments, research findings, and theoretical contributions are expressed with greater clarity and coherence. We have aimed to preserve the academic tone while improving the accessibility of the narrative. We hope that the revised version addresses your concerns and meets the expected standards of scientific writing.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work is of interest to specialists, but some adjustments are necessary:
1. In the Material and Methods section, indicate the period of the study and / or the survey of respondents.
2. Specify where, by whom and how the socio-demographic questionnaire was validated.
3. Sources 8 and 23 are repeated. As a rule, sources in the References list are indicated only once, and in the text the unique number of the listed source is indicated as many times as necessary.
4. Are source 7 and source 30 identical?
5. It is recommended to review the bibliographical sources and replace old publications with more recent sources, according to the year of publication.

Author Response

Thank you for the recommendations. In what follows, I will explain step by step each modification made to the manuscript.

Comment 1. In the Material and Methods section, indicate the period of the study and / or the survey of respondents.

Response 1: Thank you for your observation. We have now specified the period of data collection in section 3.4 (Data Collection, Research Instruments and Statistical Analyses), as recommended. The revision is marked in red in the updated manuscript.

Comment 2. Specify where, by whom and how the socio-demographic questionnaire was validated.

Response 2: Thank you for this comment. Although the socio-demographic questionnaire is not a standardized scale, we have clarified that it was constructed using well-established variables in occupational health research and reviewed by two academic experts for face validity. This addition appears in section 3.4 (Data Collection, Research Instruments and Statistical Analyses), marked in red in the revised manuscript

Comment 3. Sources 8 and 23 are repeated. As a rule, sources in the References list are indicated only once, and in the text the unique number of the listed source is indicated as many times as necessary.

Response 3: Thank you for your observation. You are right — we have removed reference [23], and this change is marked in red with strikethrough in the reference list. We have also reordered the in-text citations accordingly.

Comment 4. Are source 7 and source 30 identical?

Response 4: Thank you for your observation. You are right — reference [7] is identical to reference [30]. We have removed reference [30] from the bibliography and marked the change in red with strikethrough. The in-text citations and reference list have been renumbered accordingly.

Comment 5. It is recommended to review the bibliographical sources and replace old publications with more recent sources, according to the year of publication.

Response 5: Thank you for the suggestion. We have reviewed the references and updated several older sources with more recent and relevant publications. Specifically, we replaced Clark (2014) with Andersen et al. (2023) [17], Ryff et al. (2008) with Joshanloo & Blasco-Belled (2023) [5], and Andreassen et al. (2007) with Jung et al. (2023) [7]. Currently, over 65% of the sources are from 2019–2025, ensuring the manuscript reflects updated scientific knowledge. Foundational works were retained only when essential.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering and addressing reviewers comments 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made very thorough and meticulous revisions to this paper, and we thank them for their efforts. I personally feel that all the comments I have made have been well responded to, so I have no further comments. Based on the overall revision situation, this paper can be considered for publication.