A Balanced Professional and Private Life? Organisational and Personal Determinants of Work–Life Balance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript. Below are my comments and suggestions intended to improve the clarity, coherence, and academic quality of the article:

1. The manuscript currently includes numerous instances of first-person plural expressions (e.g., “we”). It is recommended that the authors revise these instances to adopt a more formal, impersonal tone consistent with academic writing standards.
2. The abbreviation WLB (Work-Life Balance) should be defined only at its first occurrence in the manuscript. 
3. The subtitles used in the literature review section should be more explicitly linked to the research questions. Doing so would improve the logical flow and demonstrate how the literature supports the development of the study.
4. The manuscript does not mention the software used for data analysis. It is important to specify the name and version of the software employed. Additionally, a brief explanation should be provided regarding how the figures were created (e.g., software or tools used), to enhance transparency and replicability.
5. It is recommended that the authors include a diagram illustrating the research flow in the introduction. This would help readers better understand the overall structure and progression of the study.

I hope these comments are helpful in further developing the manuscript. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this work.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript. All suggestions have been carefully considered, and appropriate revisions have been implemented as detailed below.

- The manuscript currently includes numerous instances of first-person plural expressions (e.g., “we”). It is recommended that the authors revise these instances to adopt a more formal, impersonal tone consistent with academic writing standards.

Thank you for this comment. The manuscript has been carefully revised to remove first-person plural expressions and adopt a formal, impersonal tone in line with academic writing standards.

- The abbreviation WLB (Work-Life Balance) should be defined only at its first occurrence in the manuscript. 

Thank you for your comment. The abbreviation WLB is now defined only at its first occurrence in the manuscript, and redundant definitions have been removed.

- The subtitles used in the literature review section should be more explicitly linked to the research questions. Doing so would improve the logical flow and demonstrate how the literature supports the development of the study.

Thank you for the comment. We have revised the literature review subtitles to ensure they are explicitly linked to the research questions, which has improved the coherence and logical flow of the section.

- The manuscript does not mention the software used for data analysis. It is important to specify the name and version of the software employed. Additionally, a brief explanation should be provided regarding how the figures were created (e.g., software or tools used), to enhance transparency and replicability.

We appreciate this valuable comment. The manuscript has been revised to include detailed information on the software and tools used for data analysis and figure preparation, ensuring greater transparency and replicability.

- It is recommended that the authors include a diagram illustrating the research flow in the introduction. This would help readers better understand the overall structure and progression of the study.

We acknowledge the reviewer’s recommendation to include a diagram illustrating the research flow. While we decided not to introduce a separate diagram, the introduction and methodology sections have been revised to more clearly present the structure and progression of the study. We believe these changes enhance reader understanding without the need for an additional visual element.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent organization. Excellent research questions. They are relevant to the current environment. The Spillover Theory is very relevant. You have 60% women in your population.   It is possible that a higher percentage of women than men have responsibilities for household duties and caring for children. That might impact the other issues. A next study could look at the time males and females spend on each category. The men may have farm work in addition to regular work since this is a rural area, but they may not.  

Author Response

- Excellent organization. Excellent research questions. They are relevant to the current environment. The Spillover Theory is very relevant. You have 60% women in your population.   It is possible that a higher percentage of women than men have responsibilities for household duties and caring for children. That might impact the other issues. A next study could look at the time males and females spend on each category. The men may have farm work in addition to regular work since this is a rural area, but they may not.  

We sincerely thank you for your careful review and valuable suggestion. We have incorporated your recommendation into the conclusions section by adding a note that future research should investigate potential gender-specific factors influencing work-life balance in rural areas, including differences in household duties, caregiving responsibilities, and possible engagement in farm work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written paper with a very interesting topic regarding sustainability in professional life in rural areas of Poland. It is a well-theorized and methodologically innovative paper. It is also well written with a proper structure and methodology. Minor improvements are suggested.

Abstract: The abstract lacks key methodological details such as sample size, demographics, and data collection methods.

Methodology: Explain further how your theoretical approach informed the research’ s methodology and especially the questionnaire.

Contribution: Explain if there are links between research findings and UN Sustainable Development Goals mentioned in the paper.

Your methodology is innovative and well-structured on a theoretical basis. Could your methodology be expanded and used in relevant studies? Could it also be used in research in urban areas?

Author Response

1. This is a well-written paper with a very interesting topic regarding sustainability in professional life in rural areas of Poland. It is a well-theorized and methodologically innovative paper. It is also well written with a proper structure and methodology. Minor improvements are suggested.

We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript. All suggestions have been carefully considered, and appropriate revisions have been implemented as detailed below.

 

2. Abstract: The abstract lacks key methodological details such as sample size, demographics, and data collection methods.

Thank you for this valuable comment. The abstract has been revised to include key methodological details, such as the sample size, demographic characteristics, and data collection methods, to ensure greater clarity and completeness.

3. Methodology: Explain further how your theoretical approach informed the research’ s methodology and especially the questionnaire.

Thank you very much for this excellent and insightful comment. The methodology section has been revised to clearly explain how the theoretical framework informed the questionnaire design.

4. Contribution: Explain if there are links between research findings and UN Sustainable Development Goals mentioned in the paper.

Thank you for this accurate observation. We have revised the Conclusions to explicitly articulate the links between our findings and the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 3, SDG 5, and SDG 8).

5. Your methodology is innovative and well-structured on a theoretical basis. Could your methodology be expanded and used in relevant studies? Could it also be used in research in urban areas?

Thank you for the suggestion. We have implemented the following:

- Added a dedicated section, “Applicability to other contexts, including urban settings, and directions for future research” (placed before Conclusions), explaining the modular and transferable nature of the methodology.

- Specified how to adapt the approach to urban studies (e.g., indicators such as commuting mode and intensity, public transport, noise/safety, shift work, platform work) and how to ensure comparability (sample stratification, verification of the measurement structure, measurement invariance tests, and recalibration of cut-off thresholds to local distributions).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulation for your work! I appreciate the originality of the research context (work-life balance of employees from rural areas!!) and the presented investigation approach are great! Several observations of mine could improve your work and better underlined the findings:

1. Minor grammar and style corrections are needed!
   • The abbreviation “WLB” is used immediately without defining it. Ensure it’s defined early and used consistently.
   • “work-life balance” should consistently be hyphenated when used as a compound adjective (e.g., “work-life balance policies”).
   • Some sentences could benefit from additional commas for clarity, especially in longer clauses.
   • A few minor typos were found, such as: “inderdependent” should be “interdependent” AND “analysed” and “analyzed” are both used. Authors should choose either British or American English and apply consistently!
   • There is a conceptual ambiguity when operating with the terms like “comfort,” “flexibility,” and “autonomy”, which are used broadly and could be more precisely defined. Also, the use of JD-R, spillover, and boundary theories is comprehensive but sometimes leads to conceptual redundancy.
2. In the case of chapter 2: the literature review is thorough but could benefit from more comparative insights across different countries or sectors. In addition, concepts like burnout, emotional labor, or resilience are mentioned but not deeply analyzed based on literature. Could you extend chapter 2?
3. I suggest to have a final chapter dedicated to all limits/limitations of the research.
4. I find some methodological limitation of the study, that should be addressed (recognized) in a special section dedicated to the limits of the study:
   • The study captures a snapshot in time, which limits the ability to observe changes or trends in work-life balance (WLB) over time.
   • There should be a discussions on the fact that the reliance on subjective evaluations may introduce bias, such as social desirability or recall inaccuracies. 
   • I my opinion, because of the absence of interviews or open-ended responses, the study misses nuanced insights into personal experiences and coping strategies.
5. The research has a limit of its geographical area. While the rural context is valuable, findings may not be applicable to urban settings or other countries (except Poland) with different cultural and institutional frameworks. Could you make some comments on this fact?
6. Related to the exploratory nature ... While regression trees (CART) are useful for uncovering patterns, they do not establish causality. Can you comment on this?
7. Ref Fig 11: as it is depicted ... the decision tree is detailed but may be difficult for non-technical readers to interpret without guidance. Can you provide other graphical solution for your finding? that could support managers, the decision-making process, changing behaviors of rural employees etc. 
8. Regarding the recommendations ... they could be grouped in a separate chapter (after conclusions). While the article suggests multidimensional support, it doesn’t offer concrete policy or HR strategies tailored to different employee profiles. Also, the responsibility of organizations in shaping WLB is acknowledged but not explored in depth (e.g., leadership, culture, training). Could you extend your recommendations?
9. I suggest to re-write the abstract and the conclusion to improve clarity and impact.

Author Response

Congratulation for your work! I appreciate the originality of the research context (work-life balance of employees from rural areas!!) and the presented investigation approach are great! Several observations of mine could improve your work and better underlined the findings:

- We would like to thank the reviewers for their constructive and insightful comments, which have significantly contributed to improving the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the manuscript. All suggestions have been carefully considered, and appropriate revisions have been implemented as detailed below.

Minor grammar and style corrections are needed!

The abbreviation “WLB” is used immediately without defining it. Ensure it’s defined early and used consistently.

 “work-life balance” should consistently be hyphenated when used as a compound adjective (e.g., “work-life balance policies”).

- Thank you for the comment. The term work-life balance (WLB) is now defined at its first occurrence only; subsequent mentions use the abbreviation consistently. All redundant redefinitions have been removed throughout the manuscript.

Some sentences could benefit from additional commas for clarity, especially in longer clauses. A few minor typos were found, such as: “inderdependent” should be “interdependent” AND “analysed” and “analyzed” are both used. Authors should choose either British or American English and apply consistently!

- Thank you for the suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to improve clarity. We added commas where needed and split longer sentences into shorter ones. Punctuation has been standardised to the journal style.

There is a conceptual ambiguity when operating with the terms like “comfort,” “flexibility,” and “autonomy”, which are used broadly and could be more precisely defined. Also, the use of JD-R, spillover, and boundary theories is comprehensive but sometimes leads to conceptual redundancy.

- Thank you for this insightful comment. We have clarified the operational definitions of “comfort,” “flexibility,” and “autonomy” (as time autonomy within F2) directly below the factor table (EFA) and standardized their use in the Results and Discussion sections. We also explicitly separated the roles of the theories: JD-R (demands/resources and buffering effects), spillover (cross-domain transmission and lifestyle indicators), and boundary (boundary control in the context of F2). These changes address the noted ambiguity and reduce conceptual redundancy.

In the case of chapter 2: the literature review is thorough but could benefit from more comparative insights across different countries or sectors. In addition, concepts like burnout, emotional labor, or resilience are mentioned but not deeply analyzed based on literature. Could you extend chapter 2?

- We appreciate this valuable comment. While Chapter 2 is already extensive, we have incorporated additional comparative insights and expanded the discussion of burnout, emotional labour, and resilience where relevant, ensuring these aspects are more clearly embedded in the theoretical framing without altering the overall structure of the section.

I suggest to have a final chapter dedicated to all limits/limitations of the research.

I find some methodological limitation of the study, that should be addressed (recognized) in a special section dedicated to the limits of the study:

The study captures a snapshot in time, which limits the ability to observe changes or trends in work-life balance (WLB) over time.

There should be a discussions on the fact that the reliance on subjective evaluations may introduce bias, such as social desirability or recall inaccuracies.

I my opinion, because of the absence of interviews or open-ended responses, the study misses nuanced insights into personal experiences and coping strategies.

The research has a limit of its geographical area. While the rural context is valuable, findings may not be applicable to urban settings or other countries (except Poland) with different cultural and institutional frameworks. Could you make some comments on this fact?

- We thank the Reviewer for this valuable suggestion. A separate section dedicated to the limitations of the study has been added to the manuscript. It addresses the cross-sectional design, the reliance on self-reported data, the absence of a qualitative component, and the geographical scope of the study, in line with the points raised.

 

Related to the exploratory nature ... While regression trees (CART) are useful for uncovering patterns, they do not establish causality. Can you comment on this?

- Thank you for this comment. We agree. CART was used as an exploratory tool to detect patterns and is not intended to establish causality. We state this explicitly in the Methods section and in Study Limitations. We further note that future studies should use approaches better suited to causal inference, such as multivariable regression with rich controls (ANCOVA), panel models with fixed effects, and difference-in-differences with panel data.

Ref Fig 11: as it is depicted ... the decision tree is detailed but may be difficult for non-technical readers to interpret without guidance. Can you provide other graphical solution for your finding? that could support managers, the decision-making process, changing behaviors of rural employees etc.

- We acknowledge the Reviewer’s comment regarding the complexity of Figure 11 for non-technical audiences. We agree that the decision tree (CART) is detailed, but in our view it remains the most appropriate form for presenting the results of this analysis. While we did not introduce dedicated modifications to the figure itself, other revisions suggested by the Reviewer, including clarification of key concepts and descriptions, should help make its interpretation and practical use easier for managers and decision makers.

Regarding the recommendations ... they could be grouped in a separate chapter (after conclusions). While the article suggests multidimensional support, it doesn’t offer concrete policy or HR strategies tailored to different employee profiles. Also, the responsibility of organizations in shaping WLB is acknowledged but not explored in depth (e.g., leadership, culture, training). Could you extend your recommendations?

- We appreciate the Reviewer’s suggestion regarding the structuring and expansion of the recommendations. While we did not create a separate chapter for this purpose, we have incorporated additional elements into the existing recommendations to better reflect organizational responsibilities in shaping WLB, including aspects related to leadership, workplace culture, and training. These additions, together with the emphasis on tailoring strategies to different employee profiles, address the Reviewer’s concerns within the current structure of the paper.

I suggest to re-write the abstract and the conclusion to improve clarity and impact.

- We thank you for the suggestion regarding the clarity and impact of the abstract and the conclusions. Both sections have been revised to improve precision, structure, and readability, while maintaining consistency with the rest of the manuscript.