Key Determinants of Job Satisfaction among University Lecturers
Muhammad Umair Javaid
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. The manuscript entitled "Key Determinants of Job Satisfaction Among University Lecturers" aimed to investigate how work-family conflict, workload and job stress influenced university lecturers’ work satisfaction.
The study's theme is interesting, and the manuscript is generally well written. However, there are some aspects that need to be modified, deepened and improved.
Note that according to MDPI guidelines, citations should not be in the APA style, as reported in the text.
Abstract
In the abstract the gender percentage of the sample, and the mean and standard deviation of age are missing. These are important data that must already be reported in the abstract.
Introduction
Page 2, line 76: In the reference "(Et.al 2021)" I believe there is an error.
Method
The sections of Method, Participants and Measures are very basic.
In particular, the Method is unclear and data referring to the number of participants is missing.
It is necessary to enter the mean and standard deviation of age, percentage of gender, percentage of actual participants compared to those invited.
Furthermore, the Procedure section is completely missing, which is partially inserted in the Participants. In this part it is important to report the issue of informed consent and the need to consult your Internal Review Board (IRB) for approval.
The measures are only mentioned: they must be described in a much more detailed way, named, well cited, any examples and measures of the Likert scale must be reported. It is necessary to do this in depth for each instrument.
Discussions
In the Discussions section it is good to support your data with bibliographic citations. Discussions must explain and comment on the results and this is only partially done.
I recommend broadening discussions of findings based on not only national but also international literature. Here are some recent works that suit your theme and which I think may be useful for expanding and updating the introduction section:
- Fiorilli, C., Barni, D., Russo, C., Marchetti, V., Angelini, G., & Romano, L. (2022). Students’ Burnout at University: The Role of Gender and Worker Status. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11341.
- Zábrodská, K., Mudrák, J., Šolcová, I., Květon, P., Blatný, M., & Machovcová, K. (2018). Burnout among university faculty: The central role of work–family conflict. Educational Psychology, 38(6), 800-819.
- Fiorilli, C., De Stasio, S., Di Chiacchio, C., Pepe, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). School burnout, depressive symptoms and engagement: Their combined effect on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 84, 1-12.
However, I invite you to deepen the literature on the subject in order to have a more articulated and complex overview of the variables studied.
Furthermore, the limits section is completely absent. Very important.
Author Response
Point 1: Abstract
In the abstract the gender percentage of the sample, and the mean and standard deviation of age are missing. These are important data that must already be reported in the abstract.
Response 1: researchers already reported gender %, mean and SD of age in the abstract. It can be found in page: 1, line: 14-18.
Point 2: Introduction
Page 2, line 76: In the reference "(Et.al 2021)" I believe there is an error.
Response 2: researchers already adjusted the above error into a preferable citation format which is currently located in page 4, line 102.
Pont3: Method
The sections of Method, Participants and Measures are very basic:
- A) In particular, the Method is unclear and data referring to the number of participants is missing.
Response 3a: Researchers provided extra information to explain as follow:
- Method: the method of selecting the participation which researchers used to looking for participation was “snowball sampling”. It is found in data collection processes, page: 7, line: 291-295.
- Data referring to number of participants: researchers constructed the statistic table 3 to indicate number of participants. It is located between page 8.
- B) It is necessary to enter the mean and standard deviation of age, percentage of gender, percentage of actual participants compared to those invited.
Response 3b: Researchers constructed subsection “4.1 Basic Respondents’ Information Results”. The statistical results can be located between page:7-8.
Point 4. Furthermore, the Procedure section is completely missing, which is partially inserted in the Participants. In this part it is important to report the issue of informed consent and the need to consult your Internal Review Board (IRB) for approval.
Response 4: researchers added extra information regardless of research ethic principles:
- Response 4a) consultance producers regardless of research ethic was explained “Before starting data collection of this research,..” which located between page 7, line:271-282.
- Response 4b) Researchers also revealed extra information regardless of issue of informed consent and IRB at page 13, line:499-504.
Point 5. The measures are only mentioned: they must be described in a much more detailed way, named, well cited, any examples and measures of the Likert scale must be reported. It is necessary to do this in depth for each instrument.
Response 5: researchers extra details about measurements and likert scale by providing examples, citation and table construct to make it convenient for readers. This information can be located in 3.2 Measurement, page:6-7, line: 252-269.
Point 6. Discussions
In the Discussions section it is good to support your data with bibliographic citations. Discussions must explain and comment on the results and this is only partially done.
I recommend broadening discussions of findings based on not only national but also international literature. Here are some recent works that suit your theme and which I think may be useful for expanding and updating the introduction section:
- Fiorilli, C., Barni, D., Russo, C., Marchetti, V., Angelini, G., & Romano, L. (2022). Students’ Burnout at University: The Role of Gender and Worker Status. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11341.
- Zábrodská, K., Mudrák, J., Šolcová, I., Květon, P., Blatný, M., & Machovcová, K. (2018). Burnout among university faculty: The central role of work–family conflict. Educational Psychology, 38(6), 800-819.
- Fiorilli, C., De Stasio, S., Di Chiacchio, C., Pepe, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2017). School burnout, depressive symptoms and engagement: Their combined effect on student achievement. International Journal of Educational Research, 84, 1-12.
Response 6: Researchers tried to read and found one related article to cite in the discussion. The citation can be located in page:11, line:383.
Point 7: Furthermore, the limits section is completely absent. Very important.
Response 7: researchers already created a new subsection which was placed after theoretical and managerial implications page:12, subsection “5.3 Limitations of Research”, line:458-471.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this interesting article. I am suggesting/recommending few points, which may enhance the paper quality.
1. Theoretical background should be mentioned in a separate heading under the literature section and the underlying theory should be explained.
2. The hypotheses should be mentioned clearly and as per academic writeup guidelines. Instead of “increase” or “decrease”, the statement of hypotheses should use words like “significant negative/positive relationship” to elicit the directional relationship of the study variables.
3. The limitations of the study should be mentioned either at the end of discussion section in a paragraph form or after the implications section in a separate heading instead of stating in conclusion.
4. Finally and most importantly, I am wondering about the study significance. Please highlight in the introduction he significant contribution of your article
Thank you and Good luck
Author Response
Point 1: Theoretical background should be mentioned in a separate heading under the literature section and the underlying theory should be explained.
Response 1: Researchers alread created a separate heading for theoretical foundation “2.1 Thoery of Planned Behavior (TPB)” under literature review. It can be found at page:2, line: 85-99.
Point 2: The hypotheses should be mentioned clearly and as per academic writeup guidelines. Instead of “increase” or “decrease”, the statement of hypotheses should use words like “significant negative/positive relationship” to elicit the directional relationship of the study variables.
Response 2: all statements of hypotheses were already changed to “negative or positive relationship” as suggested by the reviewer. These statements can be found from H1-H5.
Point 3: The limitations of the study should be mentioned either at the end of discussion section in a paragraph form or after the implications section in a separate heading instead of stating in conclusion.
Response 3: Researchers created a new separate heading for limitation of study and move limitations of study to stay after implications section. It can be found in page:12, line:458-471.
Point 4. Finally and most importantly, I am wondering about the study significance. Please highlight in the introduction the significant contribution of your article.
Answer: Researchers already provided extra information regardless of this research significance following the reviewer’ suggestion. It can be found in between page:1-2, line:44-51.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Some modifications are recommended to increase the final quality:
-It is necessary to include the specific objectives in the introduction.
-Well described and structured quantitative methodology, although it is recommended to make the questions and objectives more explicit. Also, I have some questions around your methodology: 1.- Why did you choose this methodological approach? 2.- How was the data analysed?
-The results chapter is relevant, but it would be recommended that the topics / categories in which the analysis and interpretation are structured be justified as they emerge, either in this results section, or preferably in the method section as indicated in the previous comment.
-It is recommended to review the bibliography and extend the references.
Congratulations to the authors and I encourage you to undertake further research.
Best regards
Author Response
Point 1: It is necessary to include the specific objectives in the introduction.
Response 1: Researchers already provided extra information regardless of revealing specific objectives in this research. It can be found in page:2, line:80-84.
Point 2: Well described and structured quantitative methodology, although it is recommended to make the questions and objectives more explicit. Also, I have some questions around your methodology:
a)- Why did you choose this methodological approach?
Response 2a: researchers provided extra information regardless of method used for approach sample and data collection. This informaiton can be found in page: 7, line:291-295.
- B) - How was the data analysed?
Response 2b: researchers checked and found that the explanation regardless of how data were analyzed was also provided in this subsection “4.1 Model Measurement and Data Analysis”. This information can be found in page: 8, line: 320.
Point 3: The results chapter is relevant, but it would be recommended that the topics / categories in which the analysis and interpretation are structured be justified as they emerge, either in this results section, or preferably in the method section as indicated in the previous comment.
Response 3: Researchers are not 100% clear with this comment. However, researchers explained the results following the logical order of research objectives: (1) starting with factors influencing job stress and (2) factors influencing job satisfaction. Moreover, researchers also tried to make it easy for reader by creating subsections for result discussions which can be found in page: 12.
Point 4: It is recommended to review the bibliography and extend the references.
Response 4: Researchers already checked and extended more references following reviewer’s suggestion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thanks for reviewing my comments. I think it is possible to improve some passages, especially of literature. I invite you to review the literature previously reported and to delve into some variables.
Author Response
Point 1: Thanks for reviewing my comments. I think it is possible to improve some passages, especially of literature. I invite you to review the literature previously reported and to delve into some variables.
Response 1: Researchers already provided a comprehensive literature review for extra explanation on focused variables in literature review section. The information can be found in Page: 3-4, Line:136-177.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
