Inequality of Exposure to HRM Systems and Individual Performance: Evidence from a Hybrid Public Workforce

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the attachment.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review the article.
Although the article's topic is interesting, it is written in unclear and confusing language, which makes it difficult to read and understand.
I think there are some aspects that should be improved so that the article can be published.

First of all, I believe it would be important to cite more relevant authors in the field and not always stick to the same works.
In the introduction, they should focus more on the relevance of the study and its importance to the research area.

In chapter 2, I think the title "materials" is not the most appropriate. I think it would make more sense to put something like "literature review" or "theoretical framework". This chapter should be further developed and with the use of more authors.

The methodology chapter is very "dense" and difficult to read. They should simplify the language, add more paragraphs, and frame the information so that the chapter is better understood.
I think it would be interesting to post an image with the research model, showing the hypotheses and the various dimensions of the variables.
They do not report when the data was collected or the procedures for data collection.

The results chapter appears in a simplified way. I think they could have explored the data more. The hypotheses were tested only based on the correlation between the variables.
They do not characterize the sample.

The discussion chapter is also not very in-depth, a result of the results being poorly explored.

The conclusions are somewhat confusing due to the unclear language. They should improve the reference to the theoretical and practical implications of the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think that the paper presents a solid foundation and can contributes to emerging discussions on HRM systems but, with a targeted refinements in theoretical positioning, depth of discussion, and linguistic precision, the paper could significantly increase its scholarly impact.

The study is conceptually grounded and clearly structured but, while the literature review is extensive and well referenced, it remains largely descriptive: there is a need of a more critical synthesis! It would help highlight the specific gaps that this study aims to fill and position the contribution more sharply within ongoing debates on HRM systems and inequality of exposure in public administration. In add of this, the discussion would benefit from a deeper examination of how structural characteristics of hybrid civilian–military settings may moderate HRM–performance relationships. 

The dimensional analysis identifies “incorporate” as the most salient predictor; this is an interesting and meaningful result, but the discussion could expand on why other processes show weaker associations, particularly in light of public-sector constraints: this would allow for more nuanced managerial recommendations. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is generally acceptable, but several passages may benefit from stylistic refinement to improve readability and reduce repetition (and the limitations section could more directly address the implications of self-report measures and single-source data).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering the suggestions I made, and I appreciate the effort you made to incorporate them into the document.
Although I believe there are still some parts of the text that are a bit dense, and I haven't seen the introduction of new authors, I consider that with this substantial improvement to the article, it is now ready for publication.
Good job!