A Theoretical Framework for Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods in the Intelligent Leading and Allocation of Human Resources in Research and Development Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: don’t use abbreviation in title

Abstract

1. Clarify the research gap.
2. Clariy the research method.
3. Originality Is Not Clearly Established.

Introduction:

1. The research gap not clear.

 

Discussion:

This part is missing

Theoretical  and practical implications:

Is missing

 

Limitations and future research

Is missing 

 

Author Response

Dear Evaluators,

Please find below the revised article, which we have carefully updated to incorporate your valuable feedback and address all comments provided. We hope the adjustments meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript.
Please find below some suggestions to improve it.

1) Abstract
The abstract should present the research method used in the study.

2) Introduction
The paragraph that starts with "Researchers in STEAM" is somewhat confusing because it presents some concepts related to MADMs but the decision problem has not been clearly stated at this point. There should be maybe an additional paragraph to cleary present the decision problem. In addition, what is a high-performance work system?

3) Introduction
The Research question presented is “What attributes determine the success of R&D projects?”. However, the introduction has been focused on a multi criteria decision making related to HR assignments to projects. It seems that either the RQ should be more specific in relation to HR or the arguments presented in this section should better explore the subject of project success.

4) Introduction
This section should present other similar reviews that have been conducted so far in order to clearly present existing gaps in the literature since the topic of project performance has been explored in the literature.

5) Literature review
The manuscript lacks a theoretical background or state of the art section to describe common factors for project performance. The Results section presents several factors but it is not clear whether or not they are recognized by the literature.

6) Methods
If possible, the search terms should be defined based on previous studies. At least, the concept of project performance should be better defined to justify the usage of these terms.

7) Methods
The PRISMA method should be used to perform the systematic literature review (SLR) or the authors should cite seminal papers that define how to perform a SLR

8) Methods
Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be presented.

9) Results
It is not clear what the number in the last column of Table 2 represents. Please explain.

10) Results
The mechanism the authors used to identify the factors in the selected papers is not clearly described in the paper.

11) Discussions
The paper should have a discussions section in which the findings of this study are constrasted with the outcomes of related studies.

12) Discussions
The authors state that a framework will be presented, which makes the reader expect for a figure or a visual representation of the main findings.

13) Conclusions
The study should present its limitations and how they could impact the interpretation of the results.

Author Response

Dear Evaluators,

Please find below the revised article, which we have carefully updated to incorporate your valuable feedback and address all comments provided. We hope the adjustments meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic addressed by the authors is timely and relevant to the scientific community, as it explores the intelligent allocation of human resources in research projects using MADM-type methods. The theoretical approach and synthesis of key performance factors offer potential value for developing decision-making frameworks in R&D management.

To improve the quality and scientific rigor of the article, I recommend the following revisions:

• Expand the introduction to provide a more comprehensive overview of the topic, clearly situating the study within the current state of the literature and identifying existing research gaps.

• Clarify the added value of this research, highlighting its novelty and specific contributions compared to previous studies in the field.

• Detail the methodology used for the article selection process, including inclusion/exclusion criteria, search limitations, and any bias-control strategies.

• Enhance the visual presentation of the findings by including figures or diagrams that summarize the classification of factors or the proposed framework.

• Revise the abstract, introduction, and conclusion sections to eliminate repetitive formulations and improve clarity and conciseness.

Author Response

Dear Evaluators,

Please find below the revised article, which we have carefully updated to incorporate your valuable feedback and address all comments provided. We hope the adjustments meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Strong Points

1. Relevance of Topic
   • The focus on multi-criteria decision-making (MADMs) and human resource allocation in R&D projects addresses a critical gap in project management literature, especially in high-innovation contexts.
   • The link between HRM and project success is timely and aligns with sustainability and strategic management discourses.
2. Comprehensive Literature Review
   • The paper identifies 49 distinct factors affecting R&D project performance, offering a broad and panoramic understanding of variables influencing success.
   • The categorization into four interrelated dimensions (strategic, operational, organizational competence, innovative-adaptive) provides a coherent conceptual framework.
3. Novelty in Approach
   • The proposed framework for applying MADMs tools to HR allocation is innovative and can serve as a foundation for empirical models.
   • The recognition of both tangible (costs, timing) and intangible (trust, leadership style) factors is commendable and reflects systemic thinking.
4. Contribution to Practice
   • Highlights practical implications for project managers and policymakers in R&D, particularly regarding prioritization of HR-related factors in decision-making.

 

Weak Points

1. Methodological Limitations
• The study is purely theoretical and based solely on literature review; no empirical validation or case study is presented to demonstrate applicability.
• The search strategy (limited to WoS and past 5 years) may have excluded seminal works that could enrich the conceptual framework.
2. Clarity and Structure Issues
• Some sections (especially results and framework development) contain repetitive descriptions of the 49 factors, which could be condensed for better readability.
• The categorization of factors into four dimensions is insightful but needs clearer justification (e.g., why certain factors belong to one dimension and not another).
3. Insufficient Depth in MADMs Application
• While the paper introduces MADMs methods (e.g., DEMATEL, MABAC), it does not explain how these would be operationalized in practice.
• Lacks illustrative examples or a step-by-step process for applying the proposed framework in actual R&D project settings.
4. Presentation and Formatting
• Figures or diagrams summarizing the framework are absent, which could help visualize relationships among factors and categories.
• Some tables (e.g., Table 3) are long and dense; synthesis or graphical representation would improve comprehension.
5. Limited Discussion on Implications
• The practical implications for managers and policymakers are briefly mentioned but not deeply explored (e.g., how can organizations implement the framework? What training or systems are needed?).

Issues to Address for Publication

1. Enhance Methodological Rigor
• Consider adding empirical validation (e.g., expert interviews, Delphi study, or case application) to test the framework’s robustness.
• Expand literature search beyond WoS and consider seminal studies older than 5 years for completeness.
2. Strengthen MADMs Application
• Provide explicit steps for implementing MADMs in HR allocation for R&D projects.
• Include an illustrative example or hypothetical scenario to show how the framework can be applied.
3. Improve Clarity and Organization
• Condense repetitive explanations and ensure smooth transitions between sections.
• Include visual representations (flowcharts, conceptual diagrams) to summarize the framework and factor relationships.
4. Expand Practical Implications
• Discuss how organizations can integrate the framework into strategic HR planning, project selection, and performance evaluation.
• Suggest potential software tools or decision-support systems that could operationalize the model.
5. Formatting and Language
• Revise for grammar and readability; ensure consistent terminology (e.g., “HRM factors,” “human resource behaviors,” etc.).
• Adjust tables for readability and include a summary table linking factors to the four categories.

 

Recommendation

Major Revision Required
The article addresses an important and underexplored area with a solid theoretical foundation. However, to be suitable for publication, it requires empirical grounding, clearer explanation of the MADMs application, and stronger presentation. Addressing these issues will enhance both academic contribution and practical relevance.

Author Response

Dear Evaluators,

Please find below the revised article, which we have carefully updated to incorporate your valuable feedback and address all comments provided. We hope the adjustments meet your expectations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

uploaded

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your effort in attempting to address all the reviewers' comments.
Below, I present my analysis whether or not my previous comments have been addressed.

1) Abstract: The abstract should present the research method used in the study
ok.

2) Introduction: The paragraph that starts with "Researchers in STEAM" is somewhat confusing because it presents some concepts related to MADMs but the decision problem has not been clearly stated at this point. There should be maybe an additional paragraph to cleary present the decision problem. In addition, what is a high-performance work system?
ok

3) Introduction: The Research question presented is “What attributes determine the success of R&D projects?”. However, the introduction has been focused on a multi criteria decision making related to HR assignments to projects. It seems that either the RQ should be more specific in relation to HR or the arguments presented in this section should better explore the subject of project success.
ok

4) Introduction: This section should present other similar reviews that have been conducted so far in order to clearly present existing gaps in the literature since the topic of project performance has been explored in the literatura
Not addressed. The outcomes of previous related (similar) literature reviews are not reported.

5) Literature review: The manuscript lacks a theoretical background or state of the art section to describe common factors for project performance. The Results section presents several factors but it is not clear whether or not they are recognized by the literature
Not addressed. I insist that (maybe short) literature review section is necessary in this case to present the concepts related to Project performance and factors that contribute to such performance.

6) Methods: If possible, the search terms should be defined based on previous studies. At least, the concept of project performance should be better defined to justify the usage of these terms
In my opinion, this definition would be better placed in the Literature review section, as previously stated. In addition, no references have been presented to support the statement that about the frequency of terms. At least some of the referred studies should be cited.

7) Methods
The PRISMA method should be used to perform the systematic literature review (SLR) or the authors should cite seminal papers that define how to perform a SLR
ok, but the new paragraph that justifies the criteria and decision adopted is placed before the statement the explains that a five-year search was performed. The justification should be presented afterwards.

8) Methods
Inclusion and exclusion criteria should be presented.
ok

9) Results
It is not clear what the number in the last column of Table 2 represents. Please explain.
A new sentence was added but the doubt still remains. Is elements equal to factors? Could factors be used instead? The doubt arises because the Word "elements" has not been used before. Please use standard terms.

10) Results
The mechanism the authors used to identify the factors in the selected papers is not clearly described in the paper.
ok

11) Discussions
The paper should have a discussions section in which the findings of this study are constrasted with the outcomes of related studies.
Ok, but limitations and future research suggestions are already presented in the Conclusions section. The two last paragraphs of the Discussions section should be removed.

12) Discussions
The authors state that a framework will be presented, which makes the reader expect for a figure or a visual representation of the main findings.
I agree with the other reviewer that a visual diagram would enhance the presentation of the manuscript. 

13) Conclusions
The study should present its limitations and how they could impact the interpretation of the results
ok

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congrats!

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my professional opinion, it is now suitable for publication in Sustainability.