Age and Burnout: The Mediating Role of Emotion-Regulation Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, Dear Editor,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this study. The topic is interesting, however there are some things that would be improved:

1)    The Introduction section should be more concise. Sections 1.1. - 1.5. should rather be placed in a separate section 2. Literature Review.
2)    The Introduction section covers the main topic, but I didn’t find a clear definition of the theoretical and methodological gap this study wants to fill. Since there are lots of previous research papers published on similar topics, the paper needs a much stronger justification, highlighting more clearly and motivating the need for a new research complementary or substitutive to the previous ones conducted in the field of investigation. It should be clearly indicated what contribution the undertaken research brings to the current academic literature achievements.
3)    The sample size was not justified. How was it ensured that the sample size was appropriate for the study population? The authors should prove it. In cases of marketing research conducted on a non-random sample, the sample size is based on the principles of good practice rather than statistical assumptions. The practical method of determining the sample size is the approach according to which the final sample size depends primarily on the territorial scope of the study, the type of entities participating in the study and the number of analyzed subgroups (segments).
4)    In Discussion section, a number of practical Implications (for managers) were formulated. The application value of the work is important but the obtained results should lead to the final provisions expanding the theoretical provisions of the theoretical approach and methodology followed by the Authors. Therefore theoretical implications should precede practical implications.
5)    In Conclusions section it should be highlighted what is new in the paper? State the value of the paper.
6)    Furthermore, it would also be helpful to add the questionnaire as an appendix.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We have provided a detailed response to your comments in the attached document. Please find the comments and our corresponding responses in the file below. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating our work. Your insights have been invaluable in strengthening the quality of our research.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I find the subject of burnout interesting and topical. Every day more and more people suffer from this syndrome at work, so anything that can be used to understand it and try to find solutions seems to me to be very appropriate. It is different if what is studied on Burnout is very repetitive or has no scientific value. I think that in order for this article to be published, a series of modifications are necessary:

1. The bibliography used should be updated and incorporated into the article. Surely there is more up-to-date literature on the subject.

2.           In the introduction it is stated that there are no studies that relate age with Burnout, I would review the literature or make this statement in a different way.

3.           You should include the research objective and hypotheses at the end of the theoretical framework.

4.           It is not clearly specified how the sample was selected.

5.           The date on which the study was carried out should be indicated.

6.           It is not specified whether the sample is representative of the groups studied.

7.           I find it strange that the study did not include the length of time the worker has been with the company, or years of experience in the job. Perhaps these variables would have better explained the relationship between age, which I think it is a mistake to take it as a variable instead of the person's experience in the job, burnout and ERS. Subjects who have been in their job longer and have been with the company for more years are more likely to have developed more adaptive coping strategies than those who have been in their job for less time and are therefore more likely to experience less burnout at work.

8.           They should include how many people responded to the questionnaires and how many of them were not taken into consideration. Or at least how many people were sent the questionnaire to complete.

9.           The procedural section should be developed further and better. With what the authors put in, it is difficult to replicate the study.

10.         The general objective stated in the discussion should be related to the hypotheses.

11. Hypotheses should indicate the direction of what is expected to be found in the study. As a result, they need to be rethought again.

12.         I think they should think better about the limitations, I think there are some more to be done, and modify the first one they raise. I don't think you can do a longitudinal study following a subject from age 18 to 65 to see how their ERS change.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough review of our manuscript. We have provided a detailed response to your comments in the attached document. Please find the comments and our corresponding responses in the file below. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating our work. Your insights have been invaluable in strengthening the quality of our research.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx