Employing Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Determinants of Work Motivation and Performance Management in BUMDES: In Search of Key Driver Factors in Promoting Sustainable Rural Development Strategies

No

The REVIEWER#1 COMMENT/SUGGESTION

Responses

Position in the Manuscripts

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, which addresses an important and policy-relevant issue regarding the performance and motivation dynamics within Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDES) in Indonesia. The topic is timely and empirically grounded, and the application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) provides a potentially valuable analytical lens.

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

We appreciate your critical ideas for our manuscript. Your feedback is vital, and it has helped us improve the quality and clarity of the post. Your comments have provided insightful and essential opinions, enriching this work and providing key insights for future research growth. We have comprehensively reviewed the study article and implemented extensive adjustments to the manuscript on the comments/suggestions supplied by REVIEWER#1

#1

However, in its current form, the manuscript requires substantial revision to reach the standards of a publishable academic paper. One of the most pressing concerns is the lack of explicitly stated hypotheses. While a conceptual framework is provided, the relationships between constructs are not articulated in a testable, hypothesis-driven manner. This weakens the methodological clarity and undermines the interpretability of the SEM results. Readers should not be left to infer the hypotheses from the diagrams or narrative. It is essential to formulate them clearly and consistently in the text. 

#1. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have already added a sub-section of 2.7. Research hypothesis. Please refer to the highlighted yellow sentences, as presented below:

Please go to Page 9.

#2

The literature review, though extensive, reads more as a collection of cited works than a critical synthesis. Several important theoretical constructs, such as local politics or organizational culture, are introduced with some empirical support but without sufficient integration into a cohesive theoretical argument. The review would benefit from a clearer articulation of how previous studies inform your model and how your work fills specific gaps in the existing literature. There are also challenges with the clarity and quality of the writing throughout the manuscript. Many sentences are overly long, redundant, or awkwardly phrased. This detracts from the readability of the paper and obscures the authors’ intended meaning in key sections, including the abstract, methods, and conclusion. A professional language edit by someone experienced in academic writing in the social sciences is strongly recommended. 

#2. Your suggestions are very appreciated. Regarding your suggestion about the integration and cohesiveness of the sentences, we have already improved the sentences (see the revised red sentences presented below) and added some paragraphs to the literature review section. Please refer to the highlighted blue sentences in the section, as shown below.

Furthermore, we have difficulties identifying the sentences that you meant, “sentences are overly long, redundant, or awkwardly phrased”. However, we attempted to identify overly long, redundant, or awkwardly phrased passages and refine them. Please recheck them throughout the manuscript.

Please go to Pages 3-9.

Please go to Page 4.

3

The results section, while detailed in its statistical reporting, lacks interpretive depth. There is little discussion of why certain relationships are stronger than others, how they align (or don’t) with theoretical expectations, or what the implications are for policy and practice. Furthermore, the exceptionally high correlation reported between work motivation and management performance (0.92) should be critically examined, as it raises questions about discriminant validity or potential multicollinearity.

#3. Thank you very much for your suggestions. In response to the suggestions, we divided our reactions into two categories.

RESPONSE-1: Regarding the need for a deeper interpretation of the results, we have revised the discussion section by adding a brief analysis of the strength of the relationships between variables. We have also aligned the research results with existing theoretical expectations and added practical and policy implications that can be drawn from the findings. We hope that these improvements will contribute more significantly to the theoretical and practical understanding of the research results. Please refer to the highlighted yellow sentences from pages 26-35, as shown below for an example.

RESPONSE-2: Furthermore, regarding the high correlation (0.92) between the LV of work motivation (MT) and management performance (KN), we acknowledge the concerns raised about discriminant validity and the potential for multicollinearity. However, based on a strong theoretical foundation, the relationship between work motivation and management performance is indeed predicted to be closely related. Therefore, the high correlation observed in this model reflects consistency between the empirical findings and the theoretical foundations. We have also evaluated the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for each construct, and the results are adequate. Modification indices and error covariances have also been examined to ensure there are no indications of multicollinearity that could disrupt model stability. Please refer to the green-line sentences, as presented below:

Please go to Pages 26-35

Please go to Pages 19-20

#4.

The conclusion, while enthusiastic, overreaches in its policy prescriptions and should be more directly tied to the empirical findings presented. In sum, while the study demonstrates empirical potential and policy relevance, it needs major revisions in its theoretical articulation, methodological clarity, and presentation of results. I encourage you to revise the manuscript with these issues in mind, as the core idea is promising and could offer meaningful contributions to the discourse on rural development and community enterprise governance.

#4. Your suggestions in this point were apprecaired very much. We have already improved the research method for clarity in the conclusion section. Please refer to the red sentences, as shown below:

Moreover, we have also restructured the conclusions and recommendations to directly tie to the empirical findings and policy prescriptions/recommendations. Please refer to the highlighted blue sentences, as shown below:

Please go to Page 35.

Please go to page 36.

#5.

The manuscript would benefit fr5m careful language editing to improve clarity, flow, and academic tone. While the core ideas are understandable, the text is frequently hindered by awkward phrasing, inconsistent verb tenses, and redundancy. Some passages are overly wordy, while others lack precision, making it difficult at times to follow the authors’ arguments. To ensure the research is communicated effectively and professionally, a thorough revision by a native English speaker with experience in academic writing is strongly recommended. This will help enhance both the readability and scholarly impact of the paper.

#5. Thank you very much for your suggestion on improving the English of this manuscript. We have already made improvements based on your suggestions, particularly regarding the red lines throughout the manuscript, as illustrated in the sample below.

Please go through the entire manuscript.

No.

The REVIEWER#2 COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

Responses

Position in the PDF Manuscripts*

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

We appreciate your critical ideas for our manuscript. Your feedback is vital, and it has helped us improve the quality and clarity of the post. Your comments have provided insightful and essential opinions, enriching this work and providing key insights for future research growth. We have comprehensively reviewed the study article and implemented extensive adjustments to the manuscript on the comments/suggestions supplied by REVIEWER#2

#1

The study contains a background of theoretical research. The literature review is also largely theoretical. It is recommended to increase the focus on

previously obtained empirical results on this issue

#1. Thank you for your valuable input. We have revised the background and literature review sections by adding several empirical findings from previous studies relevant to the issue under review. This addition was made to complement the theoretical framework that has been developed, while also showing how this research is rooted in existing field findings. Thus, we hope that this section is now more balanced between the theoretical foundation and empirical evidence that supports the importance of this research. Please refer to the highlighted blue sentences in the background and literature review, as shown below:

Please go to Pages 2-8.

#2.

It is recommended to formulate research hypotheses at the end of the subsections of the Literature Review. The logic of the literature review

should be constructed to substantiate the research hypotheses.

#2. Thank you for your very constructive suggestions. We have revised the structure of the literature review by organizing the discussion flow more logically and systematically to support the formulation of hypotheses. Each subsection in the literature review now ends with a hypothesis statement formulated based on the synthesis of theories and empirical findings discussed earlier. The placement of hypotheses has also been updated as directed. Please refer to the highlighted yellow sentences, as presented below:

Please go to Page 9

#3.

In the Materials and Methods section, leave a description of the data sample,

its descriptive statistics, and limitations. Reflect the results of the study in a separate Results section

#3 Thank you for your very constructive suggestions. We have revised the Materials and Methods section by adding a description of the data sample characteristics, descriptive statistics (Table 1), and limitations of the data used (see the green line sentences, as shown below). Additionally, the research results are now clearly presented in a separate section titled “4. Results” (see the highlighted yellow sentences, as presented below).

Please go to Page 12.

Please go to Page 15.

#4

In the presentation of the research method, it is recommended to shorten the description of well-known categories (for example, dependent and

independent variables). Logically structure the method for obtaining latent variables.

#4. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. We do not fully understand what you would like us to do at this point. However, we tried to guess what you meant. We have revised the research methods section by simplifying the description of commonly known variable categories, such as dependent and independent variables, to make it more concise and to the point. Additionally, we have restructured the explanation of the latent variable (LV) formation method in a more systematic and structured manner, and replaced some explicit references to “latent variable” with the symbol LV to enhance readability and writing efficiency, as shown below:

Please go to Pages 17-18

#5

In the Discussion section, pay attention to the confirmation/non

confirmation of the research hypotheses of the manuscript

#5. Thank you very much for your feedback. We have revised the Discussions section to clarify the confirmation or rejection of the research hypothesis based on the analysis results, making the relationship between the findings and the research objectives more explicit. The sentence “it is confirmed that the research hypothesis is accepted” is for the accepted hypothesis, and the sentence “it is confirmed that the research hypothesis is rejected” is for the rejected hypothesis. Please refer to the highlighted blue sentences in the Discussions section, as presented below:

Please go to Pages 26-35

No.

The REVIEWER#3 COMMENTS/ SUGGESTIONS

Responses

Position in the PDF Manuscripts*

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

We appreciate your critical ideas for the manuscript. Your feedback is vital, and it has helped us improve the quality and clarity of the post. Your comments have provided insightful and essential opinions, enriching this work and providing key insights for future research growth. We have comprehensively reviewed the study article and implemented extensive adjustments to the manuscript on the comments/suggestions supplied by REVIEWER#3

#1

This is a valuable topic for research. The abstract of the study mentions the aims and analysis of the research. However, it is necessary to briefly discuss the mythology as the 250 respondents were discussed.  "This research was conducted in Wajo Regency, South Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, using primary data collected from 250 respondents." It should be labeled as "primary data was collected."    

#1. Thank you very much for your suggestions. Following up on the suggestion regarding briefly discussing the [methodology], as the 250 respondents were concerned. We have made a minor adjustment due to the limited word count for the abstract (see the highlighted yellow sentences). This journal limits to 200 words (see the quotation below.

Please go to Page 1.

#2

The introduction of the research provides a good background of the study, and its highlighted areas. It also covers the research gap. However, it is necessary to explicitly frame how this study has addressed the research gap.    

#2. Thank you for your appreciation and very constructive feedback. Based on the suggestions provided, we have revised the introduction by adding a more explicit explanation of how this research addresses the identified research gap. This explanation is now presented in a more structured and direct manner, enabling readers to understand the main contribution of this research in filling the existing literature gap. We hope that these improvements will strengthen the focus and scientific relevance of the study conducted. Please refer to the highlighted dark-green sentences.

Please go to Page 3

#3

Literature review  section 2.1 is valuable, but it is repetitive. Check the definition of local politics.  In section 2.2, A new term has been discussed: "Participative backcasting."  This term should be introduced in the review, or a brief definition would help.  In section 2.5, Two citations were focused on but did not clearly differentiate the contributions. 56, 57.  

 #3. (a) Thank you for your very constructive feedback. We have revised Section 2.1 of the literature review to eliminate repetition and refine the definition of local politics, making it more concise, accurate, and relevant to the study's context. Please refer to the red sentences in the section, as shown below, for an example.

#3. (b) Thank you for your constructive comments. We have revised Section 2.2 by adding a brief introduction to the term participative backcasting to provide conceptual clarity for readers.

#3. (c) We have revised the sections related to citations [56] and [57], which are now [71] and [72], clarifying the differences in the contributions of each source. Additional explanations have been included to describe the positions, approaches, and main findings of both references, thereby avoiding overlap or ambiguity.

Please go to Pages 3-5.

Please go to Page 5

Please go to Page 7.

4

In the methodology section, data collection is well written. However, this is an issue.  Table 13, Goodness of fit, the value of  GFI is 0.870, which is below the threshold value of 0.9.  Address this issue: why was it accepted as a good fit?    

#4. Thank you for your valuable input. We understand your concerns regarding the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) value of 0.870 presented in [Table 12]. We would like to clarify that this value is not categorized as a good fit, but rather as a marginal fit, as explained in the model discussion section. According to methodological literature (e.g., Hair et al., 2014), a GFI value within the range of 0.80–0.89 is still acceptable as a marginal fit, particularly in the context of social research involving field data with moderate model complexity. Therefore, although the GFI value does not reach the good fit threshold (≥ 0.90), the model is still considered valid and suitable for further analysis. Please refer to Table 12 below:

Please go to Page 23.

5

In the result and Discussion, The nonsignificant effect of "Recruitment of Administrators (RP)" on "Management Performance (KN)" (t = 0.98) contrasts with its significant indirect effect (Table 16, t = 2.43). This discrepancy should be explicitly discussed.  

#5. Thank you for your attention and very constructive feedback. We have added a more explicit explanation regarding the insignificant direct effect of Recruitment of Administrators (RP) on Management Performance (KN) (t=0.98), and its significant indirect effect through Work Motivation (MT) (t =2.43) as shown in Table 16. This finding suggests that work motivation serves as a mediating variable, strengthening the relationship between RP and KN. Therefore, although the direct relationship is weak, RP still makes a significant contribution to performance indirectly through increased work motivation. Please refer to the highlighted dark-green sentences, as presented below:

Please go to Pages 33-34

6

The conclusion is precise and well-composed, but theoretical and practical contributions are missing. In case I raise a question, How do the results of the study advocate SEM applications in rural development studies? What policy actions are recommended?   Check the Reference 29, 33.

#6 Thank you for your very constructive feedback. In response to your question, we have revised the conclusion section by adding more explicit theoretical and practical contributions. This revision includes an explanation of how the results of this study support the application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in rural development studies. Please refer to the highlighted blue sentences, as shown below:

Please go to Page 36.

No

The REVIEWER#1 COMMENT/SUGGESTION

Responses

Position in the Manuscripts

REVIEWER31’S COMMENTS

The revised manuscript demonstrates clear progress compared to the initial submission, particularly in the addition of explicit hypotheses and a more structured discussion of results. These changes are appreciated and contribute positively to the overall clarity of the work. However, several critical issues remain that must be addressed to meet the standards of Sustainability and ensure the paper aligns closely with the thematic focus of the special issue.

AN EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION

Your insightful comments regarding our manuscript are greatly appreciated.  Your opinion is quite important, and it has helped us enhance the quality and clarity of the content.  Your comments have provided opinions that are both insightful and vital, contributing to the enrichment of this study and offering key insights for future research development.  We have conducted a thorough analysis of the research article and made significant modifications to the manuscript based on the comments and suggestions provided by REVIEWER#1.

#1.

First, while the literature review has been expanded, it still lacks a cohesive integration of concepts related to digital innovation, digital transformation, and strategic management. Given the context  of this special issue, it is essential to frame the analysis more explicitly around how digital tools, technologies, and innovative management practices influence or could influence work motivation and organizational performance in Village-Owned Enterprises (BUMDES). Strengthening these connections would not only improve thematic relevance but also provide a more contemporary and globally meaningful perspective.

#1. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have added explanations related to digital tools, technology, and innovation management in the explanation of motivation and performance variables. Please refer to the sentences marked in highlighted-yellow, as listed below:

Please go to Pages 8,9, 36, and 37

#2.

Second, the methodological section has improved with the inclusion of clear hypotheses, but further justification of the constructs and their selection is needed. The discussion should explain how these variables interact in the context of digital economy transformation and sustainable rural development strategies.

#2. Thank you very much for your suggestion. We place the synthesis of variable justification before the hypothesis as a bridge between the theoretical basis and the hypothesis. We have also added a brief discussion on how these variables interact in the context of digital economy transformation and sustainable rural development strategies. Please refer to the highlighted blue sentences as listed below:

Please go to Page 9.

#3.

Third, the results section, while comprehensive in its statistical reporting, still lacks critical interpretation of key findings. In particular, the very high path coefficient between work motivation and management performance (0.92) should be examined more carefully. While the authors argue this is theoretically expected, it would be helpful to consider potential issues of construct overlap and alternative explanations.

#3. Thank you very much for your suggestion. Conceptually, the two constructs have different measurement domains, where work motivation refers to individual psychological aspects and performance describes organizational output. We reanalyzed each indicator but found no similarity in meaning. This high correlation is thought to reflect respondents' perceptions of motivation as the primary foundation for performance achievement, particularly in community-based organizations such as BUMDES. Therefore, further studies using longitudinal and qualitative approaches are recommended to more sharply test the separation of constructs and the causal mechanisms between them. We also emphasize that these figures address concerns raised regarding discriminatory validity and potential multicollinearity. Finally, we have already made a caution for the reader to be careful in interpreting the two constructs. Please refer to the red sentences, as presented below:

Please go to Pages 20-21

#4.

The language of the manuscript, though improved, still contains long and sometimes awkward sentences that hinder readability. To ensure the research is communicated effectively, we strongly recommend professional academic editing in English.

#4. We greatly appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the language of the manuscript. We have made every effort to carefully revise the manuscript to improve its clarity, conciseness, and adherence to academic writing style. The English editor* of SUSTAINABILITY has also made corrections to the English of the manuscript in total. We downloaded the English revision of the manuscript from the page below. The example of the revision is also presented on the next page (see the blue-revised sentences in the second page. *We would like to thank the editor for his/her help to improve the English of the manuscript.

Not Applicable

#5.

Finally, the conclusions and recommendations should be more clearly tied to the empirical findings and avoid overgeneralization. A more cautious and data-driven approach in outlining policy implications would improve the credibility and impact of the work. 

#5. Thank you very much for your suggestions. We genuinely appreciate the reviewer’s attention to the importance of aligning the empirical findings and recommendations. We want to clarify that each recommendation was tied to the conclusion section and was formulated based on the results obtained through SEM analysis. Each recommendation was carefully crafted to address the key findings of the study. The colored sentences marked the correlation between the conclusion and related recommendations. Please refer to the sentences marked in highlighted blue, as listed below, for an example.

Please go to Pages 37-38.

#6.

Overall, the manuscript shows potential and is moving in the right direction, but substantial revisions are still needed to enhance the theoretical depth, thematic alignment with the special issue, and clarity of presentation.

#6. Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript in response to your suggestions. Please refer to the sentences marked in purple, as listed below:

Please go to Pages 4-9 and 37-38

No

The REVIEWER#3 COMMENT/SUGGESTION

Responses

Position in the Manuscripts

A GRATITUDE EXPRESSION

We appreciate your critical ideas for our manuscript. Your feedback is vital, and it has helped us improve the quality and clarity of the post. Your comments have provided insightful and essential opinions, enriching this work and providing key insights for future research growth. We have comprehensively reviewed the study article and implemented extensive adjustments to the manuscript on the comments/suggestions supplied by REVIEWER#3

#1

Based on my thorough review, I am pleased to recommend the acceptance of the manuscript titled "Employing Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Determinants of Work Motivation and Performance Management in BUMDES: In Search of Key Driver Factors in Promoting Sustainable Rural Development Strategies" for publication, as it significantly contributes to the field and meets the journal's standards for quality and relevance.

#1. We would like to express our deepest gratitude to  Reviewer#3 for his/her appreciation and recommendations for publication our paper titled "Employing Structural Equation Modeling to Examine the Determinants of Work Motivation and Performance Management in BUMDES: In Search of Key Driver Factors in Promoting Sustainable Rural Development Strategies.”

This positive feedback and evaluation serve as strong motivation for us to continue improving the quality of our research and academic publications in the future. Once again, we express our gratitude for the time and attention given in reviewing this manuscript.