Trends, Collaborations and Perspectives in the Study of Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction: A Bibliometric and Scientometric Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on a review of the literature on organizational climate and job satisfaction. The authors reviewed the most important publications in this field, using selected scientific quality indices for the analyzed papers. The authors posed the research question: “What are the publication trends in research on OC and JS?” However, the analysis does not answer this research question, or at least does not answer it in a way that could contribute to the authors' goal of “motivating researchers to develop stronger connections, especially in countries and unexplored sectors.” Above all, there is no discussion of the substantive aspects of the publications studied. For researchers using the results of the analysis, the most valuable aspect is the overview of different points of view and the most important patterns specific to OC and JS, which are widely recognized by the authors of the publications examined. The bibliometric analysis in its current form is valuable, but in my opinion it is insufficient for the paper to contribute significantly to knowledge.
I also have some specific comments: 1) The abstract should include the purpose of the study and the most important conclusions. 2) Attention should also be paid to editorial issues, e.g., points 7 and 8 from the template remained in the manuscript, although they were not filled in.

Author Response

Comments 1: The paper focuses on a review of the literature on organizational climate and job satisfaction. The authors reviewed the most important publications in this field, using selected scientific quality indices for the analyzed papers. The authors posed the research question: “What are the publication trends in research on OC and JS?” However, the analysis does not answer this research question, or at least does not answer it in a way that could contribute to the authors' goal of “motivating researchers to develop stronger connections, especially in countries and unexplored sectors.” Above all, there is no discussion of the substantive aspects of the publications studied. For researchers using the results of the analysis, the most valuable aspect is the overview of different points of view and the most important patterns specific to OC and JS, which are widely recognized by the authors of the publications examined. The bibliometric analysis in its current form is valuable, but in my opinion it is insufficient for the paper to contribute significantly to knowledge

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have The manuscript has been restructured, incorporating the "Conclusions" section and reformulating the "Discussion" section, in which the following text has been incorporated: "The trends reflected, through the most influential articles, authors and clusters of authors, can motivate researchers to use these references, or contact this group of authors to generate an association, promoting the increase of scientific production in the area and especially in geographical areas with less development."

Additionally, practical contributions have been explicitly incorporated into the conclusions section, incorporating the following paragraph: "From a practical perspective, this study provides valuable insights for managers, administrators, and professionals in the field of people management. It offers a global overview of research trends that have gained prominence over the past decade, particularly regarding constructs such as Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction. These findings can inform the design and implementation of workplace practices aimed at improving employees environmental conditions." 

Comments 2: The abstract should include the purpose of the study and the most important conclusions

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified the abstract to emphasize this point.

“Organizational climate (OC) and job satisfaction (JS) are constructs that have been studied for more than five decades. However, results to date are insufficient to generalize conclusions across diverse cultures, countries, and sectors. To contribute to the development of theory and practice, this study analyzes publication trends through a bibliographic review of publications indexed in the Web of Science (WoS) database between 1975 and 2023, using bibliometric and scientometric techniques. This review synthesizes accumulated knowledge and reveals significant gaps that need to be addressed, highlighting the weak articulation of research in general, the scarce scientific production in regions such as India, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, and the overrepresentation of the health sector in the specialized literature. These findings seek to motivate researchers to fill gaps in scientific production and help managers and administrators strengthen practices that improve environmental conditions for workers. The limitations of this study are related to the characteristics of quantitatively oriented bibliographic studies and the inclusion of only two constructs related to people's well-being at work, which suggests that future research could incorporate other variables such as emotional intelligence, leadership or organizational citizenship behavior.”

Comments 3: Attention should also be paid to editorial issues, e.g., points 7 and 8 from the template remained in the manuscript, although they were not filled in.

Response 3: Agree. We have, accordingly done this point.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presented for review titled “Trends, collaborations and perspectives in the study of organizational climate and job satisfaction: A Bibliometric and Scientometric Analysis” consists of six basic parts – abstract, introduction, theoretical framework, materials and methods, results, discussion of obtained research results, and a list of reference literature used in the study.

The paper is in line with actual and contemporary problems of the increasingly challenging task of managing people in organizations in the 21st century, especially in the context of people-centric and humanizing strategy perspective. The study is quite interesting, but it must be significantly improved.

In my opinion it meets the minimum quality to be accepted for publication.

Paper requires revision and reorganization. It lacks deeper analyzes and conclusions or at least future research directions and study limitations- elements necessary in scientific studies.

The abstract doesn’t clearly indicate the structure of the work. It points out and justifies to the small extent the purpose of the study. The weakness of the abstract is that it didn’t highlight what added value and contribution the article brings to the literature of the subject. My suggestion is to articulate the article objective, its contribution, and basic findings.

The introduction is insufficient. Another disadvantage is the lack of convincing presentation of the need to conduct the research - the purpose, research gap, structure of the study.

I strongly recommend conducting a thorough, multidimensional and historical (since publications from 1975 to 2023 were verified) presentation and discussion of the constructs analyzed in the research - Organizational Climate (OC) and Job satisfaction (JS).

Unfortunately, the article in the conclusions section doesn’t indicate limitations of the paper as well as further research directions and other works that undertake similar research issues, which could constitute the basis for comparative analyses.

A significant advantage of the study would be to determine the forecasted further research directions taking into account the analyzed OC and JS constructs in the perspective of their interdependences with other components of employee performance - e.g. innovative behavior, citizenship behavior, knowledge sharing, employee loyalty, commitment, etc.

I hope you find my comments helpful. Best of luck with the revisions.

Author Response

Comments 1: Paper requires revision and reorganization. It lacks deeper analyzes and conclusions or at least future research directions and study limitations- elements necessary in scientific studies

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We agree that the manuscript required deeper analysis, clearer conclusions, and a discussion of future research directions and limitations. In response, we have restructured the manuscript by reformulating the Discussion section and adding a new Conclusions section.

The revised Discussion now emphasizes the relevance of scientometric analysis in identifying key trends, influential authors, and collaboration gaps in research on Organizational Climate (OC) and Job Satisfaction (JS). It highlights how these findings can guide future collaborations, especially in underrepresented regions.

We also acknowledge the limitations of our study, including the focus on only two constructs and the lack of qualitative depth. These points are now explicitly addressed, along with suggestions for future research, such as exploring additional variables (e.g., emotional intelligence, leadership styles) and conducting a systematic literature review.

The new Conclusions section synthesizes the main contributions of the study, both theoretical and practical, and reinforces its relevance for researchers and professionals in people management.

Comments 2: The abstract doesn’t clearly indicate the structure of the work. It points out and justifies to the small extent the purpose of the study. The weakness of the abstract is that it didn’t highlight what added value and contribution the article brings to the literature of the subject. My suggestion is to articulate the article objective, its contribution, and basic findings.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the abstract. In response, we have revised the abstract to clearly present the structure of the article, articulate the study’s objective, and highlight its contribution to the literature. The updated version also includes a concise summary of the key findings and limitations, as well as suggestions for future research directions.

Comments 3: The introduction is insufficient. Another disadvantage is the lack of convincing presentation of the need to conduct the research - the purpose, research gap, structure of the study.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comments regarding the introduction. In response, we have substantially revised this section to present a clearer rationale for the study. The updated introduction now outlines the purpose of the research, identifies the gap in the literature, and describes the structure of the study. Specifically, we highlight the need for organized and comprehensive information on OC and JS, and explain our use of bibliometric and scientometric techniques to analyze publication trends from 1975 to 2023. These revisions aim to strengthen the justification for conducting the research and clarify its relevance for future studies.

Comments 4: I strongly recommend conducting a thorough, multidimensional and historical (since publications from 1975 to 2023 were verified) presentation and discussion of the constructs analyzed in the research - Organizational Climate (OC) and Job satisfaction (JS)

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful recommendation. We agree that a multidimensional and historical discussion of the constructs—Organizational Climate (OC) and Job Satisfaction (JS)—would enrich the study. While the current bibliometric and scientometric analysis provides a solid foundation, we acknowledge its limitations in addressing the conceptual depth of these constructs. Therefore, we have included in the Conclusions section that a promising direction for future research is to conduct a systematic and comprehensive literature review on OC and JS, with the aim of evaluating the quality, evolution, and theoretical contributions of prior studies.

Comments 5: Unfortunately, the article in the conclusions section doesn’t indicate limitations of the paper as well as further research directions and other works that undertake similar research issues, which could constitute the basis for comparative analyses.

A significant advantage of the study would be to determine the forecasted further research directions taking into account the analyzed OC and JS constructs in the perspective of their interdependences with other components of employee performance - e.g. innovative behavior, citizenship behavior, knowledge sharing, employee loyalty, commitment, etc.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree that the original conclusions section lacked a clear discussion of the study’s limitations and future research directions. In response, we have revised both the Discussion and Conclusions sections to explicitly address these aspects.

The updated Discussion acknowledges the limited qualitative depth of the bibliometric analysis and the focus on only two constructs (OC and JS), which restricts broader interpretive insights. The Conclusions now include specific suggestions for future research, such as exploring the interdependence of OC and JS with other components of employee performance—e.g., personality traits, leadership styles, emotional intelligence and organizational citizenship behavior. We also propose conducting a systematic literature review to assess the evolution and quality of findings in this field.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I want to begin by congratulating you on your outstanding research work.

The two topics covered are significant, current, and aligned with the actual challenges faced by managers.

Regarding methodology, the combined use of bibliometrics and scientometrics (including citation indicators, co-authorship analysis, and keyword analysis) is well-grounded in the methodological literature and applied systematically.

The analysis covering a period of almost 50 years is a powerful point of the research carried out.

The graphs and tables are well-presented and add value for the reader.

The authors provide a critical analysis of the results achieved, which is commendable.

On page 1, the word Keywords is duplicated.

On page 2, line 63, the abbreviation "SL" should be changed to "JS".

The theoretical framework section should be improved by introducing more reasoning and better exploring the connection between the two main themes.

Regarding the methodology, it would be beneficial to include a more precise explanation of why other databases, such as Scopus, were excluded.

Another situation that should be explained is why articles were analysed and book chapters, for example, were excluded.

In the discussion, you could better address and explore the international gaps you found and what motivated them, such as linguistic and cultural issues, among others.

Additionally, in the discussion, you could explore the practical implications for managers of the data analysis you conducted.

The lack of a conclusion section does not seem justifiable to me. I therefore suggest that it be added, along with the limitations and future research perspectives.

The authors' contributions are missing.

I wish you luck with your article.

Kind Regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English presents several writing challenges, particularly in syntax and fluency.

There are inconsistencies in terminology (e.g., "SL" instead of "JS" on page 2).

Author Response

Comments 1: On page 1, the word Keywords is duplicated

On page 2, line 63, the abbreviation "SL" should be changed to "JS".

Response 1: Thank you for your observation. We agree with your comment and have corrected both issues: the duplicated word “Keywords” on page 1 has been removed, and the abbreviation “SL” on page 2, line 63, has been changed to “JS” as suggested.

Comments 2: The theoretical framework section should be improved by introducing more reasoning and better exploring the connection between the two main themes

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable observation. In response, we have revised the theoretical framework to strengthen the conceptual reasoning and better articulate the connection between Organizational Climate (OC) and Job Satisfaction (JS). The updated section now includes a more integrated discussion of how OC influences JS, supported by empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives, and highlights mediating variables that help explain this relationship

Comments 3: Regarding the methodology, it would be beneficial to include a more precise explanation of why other databases, such as Scopus, were excluded.

Another situation that should be explained is why articles were analysed and book chapters, for example, were excluded

Response 3: Thank you for your comments regarding the methodology. We have clarified in the revised manuscript that the Web of Science (WoS) database was selected due to its recognized rigor and broad coverage. Many journals indexed in Scopus are also included in WoS, ensuring consistency and representativeness in the dataset.

Additionally, book chapters were excluded to avoid duplication, as it is common for published articles to later appear as chapters in edited volumes. Including both formats could distort the bibliometric and scientometric analysis and introduce bias into the results.

Comments  4 In the discussion, you could better address and explore the international gaps you found and what motivated them, such as linguistic and cultural issues, among others.

Additionally, in the discussion, you could explore the practical implications for managers of the data analysis you conducted.

The lack of a conclusion section does not seem justifiable to me. I therefore suggest that it be added, along with the limitations and future research perspectives

Response 4: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. In response, we have restructured the manuscript by reformulating the Discussion section and adding a new Conclusions section.

The revised Discussion now explores the international gaps identified in the analysis, considering factors such as linguistic and cultural barriers that may influence scientific production in certain regions. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion of the practical implications of our findings for managers and professionals in people management, particularly in relation to organizational climate and job satisfaction.

The newly added Conclusions section summarizes the main contributions of the study, acknowledges its limitations, and proposes future research directions. These include exploring the relationship between OC and JS with other performance-related variables, and conducting a systematic literature review to deepen the conceptual understanding of both constructs.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised paper is of higher scientific quality. The authors have filled in the most important gaps and identified areas requiring greater scientific focus.

Author Response

Comment: The revised paper is of higher scientific quality. The authors have filled in the most important gaps and identified areas requiring greater scientific focus. Response: Thank you for your encouraging remarks. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript once again and enhanced the scientific depth in key sections, particularly in the discussion and conclusion. These revisions aim to provide clearer interpretations and stronger connections between our findings and the broader literature

Response: Thank you for your encouraging remarks. We have conducted a further thorough review of the manuscript and strengthened its scientific depth, particularly in the discussion and conclusion sections. These revisions were made to ensure clearer interpretations of the results and to establish stronger connections between our findings and the existing body of literature.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a satisfactory job of improving, expanding and correcting the text. The responses to the suggestions and comments from the previous review are appropriate and convincing.

Author Response

Comment: The authors have done a satisfactory job of improving, expanding and correcting the text. The responses to the suggestions and comments from the previous review are appropriate and convincing. Response: We are grateful for your positive evaluation. It is reassuring to know that our revisions have met your expectations. We remain committed to maintaining the academic rigor and clarity of the manuscript.

Response: We sincerely appreciate your positive evaluation and thoughtful remarks. It is encouraging to know that our revisions have addressed your concerns and met your expectations. We remain committed to upholding the academic rigor and clarity of the manuscript throughout the publication process. < !--EndFragment -->

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,
Thank you for the improvements, corrections, and explanations to my comments.
In my opinion, the article has now improved in quality.
However, I have two further suggestions for improvement:
1. Review the use of the abbreviations “CO” and “OC”. I believe they are mixed up in some parts of the text.
2. In Table 5, you have included colour codes, but many of them are in Spanish and should be in English.
Best of luck with your article.
Kind Regards, 

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for the improvements, corrections, and explanations to my comments. In my opinion, the article has now improved in quality.
Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your continued engagement and thoughtful feedback. We are pleased to know that you consider the article to have improved in quality, and we thank you for your support throughout the revision process.

Comment 2: Review the use of the abbreviations “CO” and “OC”. I believe they are mixed up in some parts of the text.
Response 2: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected the inconsistent use of abbreviations. “OC” is now consistently used to refer to Organizational Climate, and “JS” to Job Satisfaction. The abbreviation “CO” has been removed to ensure clarity and avoid confusion.

Comment 3: In Table 5, you have included colour codes, but many of them are in Spanish and should be in English.
Response 3: All colour labels in Table 5 have been translated into English to enhance clarity and ensure accessibility for an international readership. The updated version has been incorporated into the revised manuscript.