Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

by
  • Sonia Maria Guedes Gondim 1,2,*,
  • Laila Carneiro 1 and
  • Esteban Agulló-Tomás 7,*
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the study presented the results of literature and empirical research on the causes and effects of work flexibility in relation to the situation on the labor market in five countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Spain. They conducted comparative analyses for selected employment sectors. In their research, they focused on showing the advantages and disadvantages of work commissioned using digital platforms. Particular research interest was shown in the characteristics of work undertaken on the basis of 'digiwork' as a result of establishing contact between the parties to the employment via a digital platform and determining the form and amount of remuneration. According to the authors, this is one of the main forms of employment using digital platforms.

Two research hypotheses were adopted for the research. The first hypothesis assumed that digiworkers, by voluntary choice, see more advantages than disadvantages of work obtained through a digital platform. The second hypothesis assumed that this type of work is assessed worse by employees forced by the organization or a difficult situation on the labor market to undertake it (rows: 97-103). The results of the empirical research were subjected to statistical analyses.

The general results of the research show that taking up work via digital platforms can be tolerated as a temporary form of employment. The main values ​​for employees result from classic forms of employment.

 

Reviewer's comments:

1) The main direction of reasoning presented in the study is to a small extent related to the content of the adopted research hypotheses, the content of the topic, the discussion of the research results and the summary.

2) The acceptance of the second research hypothesis, which is an alternative to the first one, should be considered an error in reasoning.

3) The description of the research results should be conducted in order to justify the conclusion about accepting or rejecting the adopted research hypothesis. The obtained results indicated that there are no significant differences for the indicated groups of respondents.

4) The research results indicate that other research hypotheses should be introduced, which would allow for the organization of the conclusions and the content of the entire study. The Authors see such a need when presenting several main research objectives in the text.

5) The coordinates in the figure used require a description.

6) A specific scale of evaluation of the obtained results should be used, because it is difficult to refer to the statement: worse results (line: 363).

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewers and the Editorial Board

 We appreciate the careful revision carried out by the reviewer. He made relevant contributions to improving the quality of our manuscript.

In Table 1, we include all comments in the left column and inform the editors of the changes made in the right column. In the reformulated version, the changes are highlighted in blue.

We hope that the new manuscript version meets the reviewers' requirements.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Table 1:

Reviewer 1

Author´s answers

The main direction of reasoning presented in the study is, to a small extent related to the content of the adopted research hypothesis, the content of the topic, the discussion of the research results and the summary

We revised the text, seeking better alignment between the objective, hypothesis, results, and discussion.

The acceptance of the second research hypothesis, which is an alternative to the first one, should be considered an error of reasoning

Thank you for this comment. We agreed with the reviewer and excluded the H2.

The description of the research results should be conducted in order to justify the conclusion about accepting or rejecting the adopted research hypothesis. The obtained results indicated that there are no significant differences for the indicated groups of respondents

Our study has an exploratory nature of comparison across countries. It is essential to offer as much information as possible to understand the phenomenon. As Popper advocates, reporting non-significant data helps in the scientific distinction process (differentiation), opening possibilities for future tests that aim to overcome the limitations identified in the present study. Although we did not capture differences between pros and cons or perceived risks among platform workers, we found differences in the effect of flexibility on professional fulfillment. This effect occurs when flexibility is considered independently of the reasons for entering the platform and when entry acts as a moderator. We emphasized it in the new version of the manuscript.

The research results indicate that other research hypotheses should be introduced, which would allow for the organization of the conclusions and the content of the entire study. The authors see such a need when presenting several main research objectives in the text

We were interested in carrying out this study precisely because we believed we knew little about the reality of digital platform workers. Although the reality of South American countries may be closer than that of European countries, we wanted to understand whether each country had economic and cultural specificities in this context of working via digital platforms. The objective was to bring us closer to this reality to generate input for hypotheses to be tested in future studies. Therefore, we only rely on a general hypothesis.

The coordinates in the figure used require a description

The axes ‘names were now included

A specific scale of evaluation of the obtained results should be used, because it is difficult to refer to the statement (line 363)

Section 2.3 (Measures) explains that the dependent variables (perception of career achievement, pros & cons, and risks) were measured on a 0-10 scale.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction part is too long and does not address the research gap.

The introduction should include the current research and gap and how this manuscript will fill that void.

The authors should remove the literature and hypothesis section from the introduction section and should create a new literature review section.

No theory was used to advance the argument in this manuscript.

 

The author can add a conclusion section at the end of the manuscript.

Author Response

Authors’ response to reviewers and the Editorial Board

 We appreciate the careful revision carried out by the reviewer. He made relevant contributions to improving the quality of our manuscript.

 

In Table 1, we include all comments in the left column and inform the editors of the changes made in the right column. In the reformulated version, the changes are highlighted in blue.

We hope that the new manuscript version meets the reviewers' requirements.

Yours sincerely,

The authors

Reviewer 2

Author´s answers

The arguments and discussion of findings should be improved in order to arrive a coherent, balanced and compelling structure

We review the manuscript to achieve more alignment.

The introduction part is too long and does not address the research gap

The introduction was revised to be more focused and to highlight the contribution of our study

The introduction should include the current research and gap and how this manuscript will find that void

The authors should remove the literature and hypothesis section and should create a new literature review section

It's an exploratory study of an empirical nature focusing on comparisons between countries. Therefore, a literature review section could be unnecessary and deviate from the study's objective. We were concerned with clarifying the key concepts that could facilitate comparing countries. Then, the main theoretical concepts, flexibility, and its effects were summarized in the Introduction. The theoretical Spreitzer's model of flexibility in digital platforms inspired us in this study.

In another publication derived from that project (an eBook published), the researchers significantly described each subsample in different chapters and tied it to the theoretical reference prevalent in each country.

One of the key contributions of this study is the development of a flexibility index. This index serves as a variable to test the effect of various personal variables on digiworkers. This innovative approach adds to the existing body of knowledge and provides a new perspective on the impact of personal variables in the digital work environment.

No theory was used to advance the argument in this manuscript

The author can add a conclusion section at the end of the manuscript

Sections 5 and 6 were integrated into a new section that resumes the findings

Author Response File: Author Response.docx