The Impact of Self-Management Practices on Entrepreneurial Psychological States
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Since this is for a special edition on Self-leadership, the paper can be strengthened by the following:
- A brief review of the Self-leadership literature relevant to this study.
- A clear explanation of the links between the self-management variables used and the Self-leadership literature.
- Specific ideas for future Self-leadership research based on this study's findings.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer 1:
- A brief review of the Self-leadership literature relevant to this study.
We have added an overview of key self-leadership literature in the paper. See Lines 58-75.
- A clear explanation of the links between the self- management variables used and the Self-leadership literature.
Again, see Lines 58-75.
- Specific ideas for future Self-leadership research based on this study's findings.
We have added ideas for future Self-Leadership research. See Lines 421-432.
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of study, the variables analyzed, in depth, and the approach to the research seems to be of interest to readers of ‘Administrative Sciences’. Self-management practices (exercise intensity, work overload and attention to detail), stress, job security and job satisfaction.
Unfortunately, this paper also has several weaknesses that should be addressed to make it publishable.
This paper presents numerous layouts, figure and references errors. It would be advisable to check “Instructions for Authors”, compare this paper to previous ones published at ‘Administrative Sciences’ and perform a general layout review.
How was the study managed? Online or paper-based survey questionnaire? This should be stated very clearly for readers.
The way in which Exercise Intensity was measured and its standardized loading factor can be confusing for readers. It would be advisable to explain this point in more detail.
Author Response
- This paper presents numerous layouts, figure and references errors. It would be advisable to check “Instructions for Authors”, compare this paper to previous ones published at ‘Administrative Sciences’ and perform a general layout review.
We have proofread and edited the referencing per your suggestions. We are using the reference, figure, and layout format we followed in our last publication in Administrative Sciences, as we were guided by the editor for that article.
- How was the study managed? Online or paper-based survey questionnaire? This should be stated very clearly for readers.
We have added more information on how the data was collected. See Lines 302 – 313.
- The way in which Exercise Intensity was measured and its standardized loading factor can be confusing for readers. It would be advisable to explain this point in more detail.
We have provided more explanation for how Exercise Intensity was measured and why. See Lines 277-289.
Reviewer 3 Report
Although this is a good start, more work is required to publish the manuscript. Hopefully, the review can guide you in getting this done.
The authors should slightly alter either the abstract or the first paragraph of the introduction as they are merely a duplication of each other.
The introduction must be re-written to follow a more structured flow. For example, in the second paragraph, the author writes that “…Finally, the paper examines the effect attention to details has on stress, security, and job satisfaction” suggesting this is the last reason and yet other rationales for the study are given in the last paragraph of the introduction.
The literature review is underdeveloped and needs to be improved. Before a hypothesis is put forward, the authors must at a minimum define what the variables in the hypothesis mean and why the variables may be linked.
The authors present Hypothesis 1b: Work overload will be negatively related to feelings of security for entrepreneurs. Yet at this point, the authors had not defined what they mean by security for entrepreneurs. Even if it is psychological security, security from what exactly? This must be clearly defined so that the reader truly understands the hypothesis that is to be tested. (I can see the definition was presented much later in the paper but this is not suitable; the order of presenting information should follow a logical flow).
The hypotheses development for H2a and H2b needs some more work. The argument as presented does not rationally lead to both hypotheses presented.
The Hypothesis 6 statement needs to be rewritten; it is not very clear.
Authors need to ensure that the referencing is properly done. When a direct quote is used, the authors need to add the page number to the reference.
How was the sample selected? Did the authors use convenience sampling? More details are needed on how exercise intensity was measured. Even though the formula is provided, how was the data collected? Was it a one-time assessment of the entrepreneur’s exercise patterns? Was the data collected with a questionnaire? Because the sample seems to be spread across different states, how was the data collected? Through email? Did researchers visit these businesses? The data collection procedures should be opened up a bit more.
In presenting the results, the model fit indicators must be presented before the results of the hypotheses.
The authors shouldn’t simply state that a hypothesis is supported but add the specific statistical figures that make it so. Even though the diagram is presented showing all the path analysis in the model, it is important to restate them in the manuscript. The authors also seem to have forgotten that they put forth a mediation hypothesis. No results for the mediating hypothesis was presented.
The study limitations must be included.
Good luck!
Author Response
- The authors should slightly alter either the abstract or the first paragraph of the introduction as they are merely a duplication of each other.
We have made the changes in Abstract and Introduction per your suggestions. Not only does the paper now read better, it also more clearly justifies the inclusion of this paper in the special issue of this journal. So not only does the paper itself read better, it likely reads better in conjunction with the other articles in the special issue.
- The introduction must be re-written to follow a more structured flow. For example, in the second paragraph, the author writes that “...Finally, the paper examines the effect attention to details has on stress, security, and job satisfaction” suggesting this is the last reason and yet other rationales for the study are given in the last paragraph of the introduction.
See comment above.
- The literature review is underdeveloped and needs to be improved. Before a hypothesis is put forward, the authors must at a minimum define what the variables in the hypothesis mean and why the variables may be linked.
We have improved the literature before the Hypotheses per the reviewer’s guidance. See Lines 94-97, 104 – 113, 125-130, 134-140, and 196-210. The Hypotheses section is now much more thorough having added literature to better explain the variables and hypotheses. Thank you.
- The authors present Hypothesis 1b: Work overload will be negatively related to feelings of security for entrepreneurs. Yet at this point, the authors had not defined what they mean by security for entrepreneurs. Even if it is psychological security, security from what exactly? This must be clearly defined so that the reader truly understands the hypothesis that is to be tested. (I can see the definition was presented much later in the paper but this is not suitable; the order of presenting information should follow a logical flow).
We have improved the section for Hypothesis 1b per your guidance. See Lines 107-113.
- The hypotheses development for H2a and H2b needs some more work. The argument as presented does not rationally lead to both hypotheses presented.
We have improved the section for Hypotheses H2a and H2b per your guidance. See Lines 125-140.
- Hypothesis 6 statement needs to be rewritten; it is not very clear.
We have improved the wording of Hypothesis 6. See Lines 253-255.
- Authors need to ensure that the referencing is properly done. When a direct quote is used, the authors need to add the page number to the reference.
We have proofread and edited the referencing per your suggestions. We are using the reference format we followed in our last publication in Administrative Sciences.
- How was the sample selected? Did the authors use convenience sampling? More details are needed on how exercise intensity was measured. Even though the formula is provided, how was the data collected? Was it a one-time assessment of the entrepreneur’s exercise patterns? Was the data collected with a questionnaire? Because the sample seems to be spread across different states, how was the data collected? Through email? Did researchers visit these businesses? The data collection procedures should be opened up a bit more.
We have added more information on how the data was collected. See Lines 302 – 313
- In presenting the results, the model fit indicators must be presented before the results of the hypotheses.
We have updated the results section. See Lines 334-352.
- The authors shouldn’t simply state that a hypothesis is supported but add the specific statistical figures that make it so. Even though the diagram is presented showing all the path analysis in the model, it is important to restate them in the manuscript. The authors also seem to have forgotten that they put forth a mediation hypothesis. No results for the mediating hypothesis was presented.
We have updated the results section. See Lines 334-352. We also added some wording to account for overlooking the mediation hypothesis. See Lines 353-356.
- The study limitations must be included. Good luck!
We have added limitations of the study to the paper. See Lines 405-416.
Thank you for your guidance! The paper is more thorough and reads much better now. Plus, the flow of the content is better. We appreciate all the reviewers’ comments
