Linking Leadership and Retention: Emotional Exhaustion and Creativity as Mechanisms in the Information Technology Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review this article. Please note the following:

1. The topic is good and interesting as it discusses a significant area that requires attention due to its impact on business performance and employee retention.
2. The abstract is well written as it includes all necessary aspects for a clear summary.
3. In the introduction, I don’t think the authors need to discuss the questionnaire and the type of study, as this is not the appropriate place for them. Such information should be discussed in the research methodology section.
4. Authors are advised not to include abbreviations such as IT and B&H unless they have been clearly stated earlier.
5. Employee turnover is still a major problem for businesses worldwide because it not only disrupts business continuity but also leads to high costs for hiring, onboarding, and lost productivity. This sentence needs citations to support this argument.
6. Please discuss the problem of the study in light of the research context. Why did you select this context for examining this model? There should be a problem, report, research gap... please support.
7. Please conclude your introduction with organisation of the article.
8. Can you separate the theoretical background or theory of the study from the section that discusses the development of the hypotheses?
9. Can you provide a summary table that demonstrate the operational definition of the concepts of the study you have used to allow readers understand them more easily?
10. Please try to include more recent studies, especially in the mediation sections.
11. Please replace the phrase 'material and methods' with 'research methodology'.
12. Please include in the research methodology section that your study was deductive and quantitative, and also specify that the sample type was convenience sampling. Support this with the article titled “Empowering micro and small enterprises in times of crisis: How human resources management skills and owned funds drive self-efficacy and continuity intention (2025).”
13. Please also support your small sample with references. AMOS generally should have more than 200 responses; in your case, PLS_SEM would have been a good option for the analysis.
14. Please attach the questionnaire you used in the appendix.
15. Please draw a Table 5 more neatly.
16. The discussion is poorly written; please elaborate further and compare your findings with the results of previous studies.
17. Please provide a section on the theoretical implications of the study and elaborate further.
18. Please proofread the article.

All the best

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needed

Author Response

Letter to Reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We want to express our profound appreciation for the chance to edit and submit our paper

again. We sincerely appreciate your informative comments and helpful criticism, which have improved the clarity and reliability of our study. We provide a thorough, point-by-point answer to each of your remarks below, detailing the precise changes we made to the manuscript and describing how we resolved the issues brought up.

1. Comment: In the introduction, I don’t think the authors need to discuss the questionnaire and the type of study, as this is not the appropriate place for them. Such information should be discussed in the research methodology section.

Response1:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the placement of details about the questionnaire and the type of study. We agree that such methodological details are more appropriately presented in the Research Methodology section. Accordingly, we have removed the discussion of the questionnaire and study type from the Introduction and incorporated this information into the revised Research Methodology section (see page 6, We believe this adjustment improves the logical flow and clarity of the manuscript.

2. Comment: Authors are advised not to include abbreviations such as IT and B&H unless they have been clearly stated earlier.

Response2:
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations, including IT (Information Technology) and B&H (Bosnia and Herzegovina), are clearly defined upon their first mention in the Introduction, in the first sentence where they appear.

3. Comment: Employee turnover is still a major problem for businesses worldwide because it not only disrupts business continuity but also leads to high costs for hiring, onboarding, and lost productivity. This sentence needs citations to support this argument.

Response3:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to support this statement with appropriate references. We have revised the sentence and added a citation to Allen, Bryant, and Vardaman (2010), which provides evidence on the high costs and disruptions caused by employee turnover.

4. Please discuss the problem of the study in light of the research context. Why did you select this context for examining this model? There should be a problem, report, research gap... please support.

Response4:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We have revised the Introduction to include a more detailed discussion of the research problem in the context of the IT sector in Bosnia and Herzegovina (B&H). Specifically, we now highlight the rapid growth of the IT industry in B&H and its contribution to the national economy, alongside the significant challenges it faces in retaining skilled professionals due to high emigration rates, global demand, and increased opportunities for remote work. Recent reports indicate that nearly 60% of IT employees in B&H consider leaving their jobs within a year, citing factors such as burnout, lack of career development opportunities, and uncompetitive salaries compared to international standards. We also emphasize the dynamic and stressful nature of the IT environment, which contributes to emotional exhaustion and reduced creativity, further exacerbating turnover intentions. Finally, we clearly identify the research gap regarding the mediating mechanisms of emotional exhaustion and creativity in the relationship between leadership styles and turnover intentions within this specific socio-economic and cultural setting. This expanded discussion appears at the end of the Introduction section on page 2.

5. Please conclude your introduction with organisation of the article.

Response5:
We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the end of the Introduction to include a paragraph outlining the organisation of the article, to guide readers through the structure of the manuscript. This addition appears at the end of the Introduction section on page 2.

6. Can you separate the theoretical background or theory of the study from the section that discusses the development of the hypotheses?

Response6:
We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. We have revised the manuscript by separating the theoretical background of the study and the development of the hypotheses into two distinct subsections, to improve clarity and logical flow. This change is reflected in Section Hypothesis development on pages 5–7.

7. Can you provide a summary table that demonstrate the operational definition of the concepts of the study you have used to allow readers understand them more easily?

Response7:
We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have added a summary table presenting the operational definitions of the study’s main concepts, including their definitions, measurement scales, and references. This table has been included as Table X on page 11.

8. Please replace the phrase 'material and methods' with 'research methodology'.

Response8:
We thank the reviewer for pointing out this detail. We have revised the manuscript and replaced the phrase “Materials and Methods” with “Research Methodology” in the section heading to better reflect the content.

9. Please include in the research methodology section that your study was deductive and quantitative, and also specify that the sample type was convenience sampling. Support this with the article titled “Empowering micro and small enterprises in times of crisis: How human resources management skills and owned funds drive self-efficacy and continuity intention (2025).”

Response9:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the Research Methodology section to explicitly state that our study employed a deductive and quantitative research design, and that the sample was selected using convenience sampling. We have also supported this methodological choice by citing the suggested article: “Empowering micro and small enterprises in times of crisis: How human resources management skills and owned funds drive self-efficacy and continuity intention (2025).”                                                                                                                      

10. Please also support your small sample with references. AMOS generally should have more than 200 responses; in your case, PLS_SEM would have been a good option for the analysis.

Response10:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We have revised the Research Methodology section to acknowledge the limitation of the relatively small sample size and to support its adequacy with relevant references. We also discussed the suitability of PLS-SEM as an alternative method for small samples and noted it as a recommendation for future research.

11. Please attach the questionnaire you used in the appendix.

Response11:
We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We have included the full questionnaire used in the study as Appendix A at the end of the manuscript.                                                                                                             

12. Please draw a Table 5 more neatly.

Response12:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have reformatted Table 5 to improve its clarity and presentation. The revised table is more concise, neatly aligned, and fits within the page margins for better readability.

13. The discussion is poorly written; please elaborate further and compare your findings with the results of previous studies.

Response13:

We thank the reviewer for this constructive feedback. We have thoroughly revised the Discussion section to make it more comprehensive and insightful. Specifically, we elaborated on the interpretation of the findings, compared them in detail with the results of previous studies, and highlighted their theoretical and practical implications. This revision strengthens the connection between our findings and the existing literature and enhances the overall contribution of the study.

14. Please provide a section on the theoretical implications of the study and elaborate further.

Response14:
We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. We have added a dedicated section on the theoretical implications of the study, elaborating on how the findings contribute to the existing literature on leadership, emotional exhaustion, creativity, and turnover intention. This new section appears at the end of the Discussion on page 19.                                                                                  

15. Please proofread the article.

Response15:
We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We have thoroughly proofread the entire manuscript to improve the clarity, grammar, and overall readability of the text. All necessary corrections have been made to ensure the manuscript meets academic writing standards.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors;

Congratulations on this informative and interesting paper. The topic on transformational leadership is indeed significant especially relating to retention rates and turnover. The introduction provides a valuable insight about the topic and an excellent kickstart for the paper. The hypotheses are realistic and draw useful and practical correlations between the variables. In general, I am in favor of publication, yet with three minor notes that need to be considered: 

1. You need to provide more recent references. This is so important because the paper should pay more attention to the recent developments that are taking place in corporate theory and practice. It was good that you laid the theoretical foundation using older references, but always bare in mind the nature of modern organizations. So please back up your research with more recent references.
2. The methodology section/method used is over simplified. Kindly note that as long as behavioral research is concerned, it is always critical to have qualitative input and insight, either to elaborate on the findings to provide clearer answers to the research question(s) or in order to provide an in-depth understanding of the issue being studied. In this respect, I recommend using a triangulation strategy that combines qualitative and quantitative data collection methods in order to provide a better and deeper insight and understanding of the issue under investigation. 
3. Finally, please provide more details/pay more attention to social and practical implications the paper attempts to make. Please be realistic and provide practical argument on how the results can advance modern organizational practices. 

Author Response

Letter to Reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We greatly value your insightful comments and constructive feedback, which have significantly contributed to enhancing the quality, clarity, and rigor of our work. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each of your observations and suggestions, explaining the specific revisions made in the manuscript and how we addressed the issues you raised.

We truly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our paper.

1. You need to provide more recent references. This is so important because the paper should pay more attention to the recent developments that are taking place in corporate theory and practice. It was good that you laid the theoretical foundation using older references, but always bare in mind the nature of modern organizations. So please back up your research with more recent references.

Response1:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have updated the manuscript by incorporating several more recent references (published between 2022 and 2024) to reflect contemporary developments in corporate theory and practice. These references were added to strengthen the theoretical foundation, support our findings, and demonstrate the relevance of the study in the context of modern organizational dynamics.
The literature that we added:

Esthi, R. B., & Panjaitan, R. (2023). Balancing work and life in academia: Unraveling the effects of job satisfaction and organizational commitment on turnover intention. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(7), 1884–1902. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2022-0504

Faeq, D. K. (2025). Narcissistic leadership, workplace bullying, turnover intention, and creative performance: A study of nurses. BMC Nursing, 24, Article 898. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12912-025-03479-x

Abdallah Yassine, R., & Jacobs, R. L. (2024). Addressing brain drain through employee development: The interplay of organizational commitment, turnover intention, and individual differences in Lebanon’s health-care sector. European Journal of Training and Development, 48(5/6), 456–472. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-01-2024-0005

Martins, P., Nascimento, G., & Moreira, A. (2023). Leadership and turnover intentions in a public hospital: The mediating effect of organisational commitment and moderating effect by activity department. Administrative Sciences, 13(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13010018

Oh, H., & Chhinzer, N. (2021). Transformational leadership and employee turnover intentions. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(17), 3689–3710. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1657165

Romão, S., Ribeiro, N., Gomes, D. R., & Singh, S. (2023). The impact of leaders’ coaching skills on employees’ happiness and turnover intention. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(11), 1927–1942. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12030084

Lopes, T., Soares, A., & Palma-Moreira, A. (2025). Toxic leadership and turnover intentions: Emotional intelligence as a moderator of this relationship. Administrative Sciences, 15(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010026

Rodrigues, I. R., Palma-Moreira, A., & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2025). Let me know what kind of leader you are, and I will tell you if I stay: The role of well-being in the relationship between leadership and turnover intentions. Administrative Sciences, 15(7), 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15070279
 

1. The methodology section/method used is over simplified. Kindly note that as long as behavioral research is concerned, it is always critical to have qualitative input and insight, either to elaborate on the findings to provide clearer answers to the research question(s) or in order to provide an in-depth understanding of the issue being studied. In this respect, I recommend using a triangulation strategy that combines qualitative and quantitative data collection methods in order to provide a better and deeper insight and understanding of the issue under investigation. 

Response2:
We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive comment. We acknowledge the value of incorporating qualitative insights to enrich behavioral research and appreciate the suggestion of using a triangulation strategy. While the current study was designed and executed as a purely quantitative, deductive investigation, this approach was chosen deliberately as it allowed for easier and more practical access to a larger number of respondents in the IT sector, which is often dispersed and time-constrained. The use of a structured questionnaire ensured uniformity of responses and facilitated statistical analysis of relationships between variables. Quantitative research is used to establish relationships between variables, make predictions, test theories, and generalize findings to a wider population. It relies on numerical data and statistical analysis to provide objective and measurable results. This approach is valuable for its ability to provide clear, concise, and reliable insights that can be used to inform decision-making. Nonetheless, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge the absence of qualitative insights as a limitation of the study. Additionally, we have highlighted the recommendation to incorporate a mixed-methods or triangulated approach in future research to provide a deeper and more nuanced understanding of the phenomena under investigation.                                                                                                             

1. Please provide more details/pay more attention to social and practical implications the paper attempts to make. Please be realistic and provide practical argument on how the results can advance modern organizational practices.

Response3
We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have expanded the section on the practical and social implications of the study. We provided a realistic discussion on how the findings can inform modern organizational practices, particularly in terms of implementing leadership development programs, prioritizing employee well-being, and creating supportive work environments. These recommendations are grounded in the context of contemporary organizational challenges and are aimed at helping organizations improve employee retention and foster sustainable performance.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, your article is interesting, but it needs some improvements to be published. My concerns are the following, with the intention to upgrade your work:

The abstract must be improved for clarity. There are so many constructs/concepts not fluently linked: employee retention,  transformational leadership, turnover intentions, intentions to leave (retention?, burnout? turnover intention?), emotional exhaustion, creativity, empathy, support, recognition, organizational benefits...

All citations must be revised and corrected. For instance, here, you must remove the commas before parentheses and include the page number when the quotation is textual and placed within quotation marks:  Masood et al., (2006)"A transforming leader engages the full person of the follower, looks for potential motives in followers, and seeks to satisfy higher needs." Bass, (1999)...

Other different mistake to be corrected, 1982 must be placed before 1986 and you have this: (Maslach & Jackson, 1986; Maslach, 1982)

 There is a high dependence on this very old reference: Bass & Avolio (1990). The authors must explore other sources after 1990 to support their work. 

Hypotheses must be reformulated for clarity. For instance, you have Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership has an impact on turnover intention. And probably you must write something like Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership has a positive and direct impact on turnover intention.

In general, the theoretical background is weak, and all hypotheses deserve a better justification with updated references. 

Regarding the method, measures (3.4) must be placed before 3.1. In addition, instead of text, include the scales in a table showing all items and sources.

The hypotheses not validated deserve better explanations.

Conclusions must be written linking your results with previous academic literature. 

Finally, it is very important to highlight the contribution of your work to this field of research. 

Ultimately, the paper is interesting but needs to be strengthened in its theoretical section, in the justification of hypotheses, by clarifying the method and clearly showing the measurement scales, thoroughly explaining the findings, and concluding with a connection to existing research in this area, while highlighting what is new in this work and its contribution.

Kind regards

Author Response

Letter to reviewer

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your valuable comments and constructive feedback, which have significantly helped us improve the quality, clarity, and rigor of our study.

Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each of your suggestions and concerns. For each comment, we explain the specific changes made to the manuscript and describe how they address the issues you raised.

We hope that the revised version of the manuscript meets your expectations, and we remain grateful for your thoughtful and insightful review.

1. The abstract must be improved for clarity. There are so many constructs/concepts not fluently linked: employee retention,  transformational leadership, turnover intentions, intentions to leave (retention?, burnout? Turnover intention?), emotional exhaustion, creativity, empathy, support, recognition, organizational benefits…

Response 1

We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. We have revised the abstract to improve its clarity and flow, ensuring that all key constructs and concepts are fluently and logically linked. The revised abstract now clearly articulates the research problem, objectives, methodology, key findings, and implications while maintaining focus on the central constructs of transformational leadership, emotional exhaustion, creativity, and turnover intention. The updated version avoids unnecessary or loosely connected terms and provides a concise and coherent summary of the study

2. All citations must be revised and corrected. For instance, here, you must remove the commas before parentheses and include the page number when the quotation is textual and placed within quotation marks:  Masood et al., (2006)”A transforming leader engages the full person of the follower, looks for potential motives in followers, and seeks to satisfy higher needs.” Bass, (1999)… 

Response2 

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the inconsistencies in citation formatting. We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected all in-text citations throughout the manuscript to align with the required citation style. Specifically, we removed unnecessary commas before parentheses and added page numbers for all direct quotations placed within quotation marks. The revised manuscript now adheres to proper academic citation conventions, ensuring clarity and accuracy in referencing

3. 
   Other different mistake to be corrected, 1982 must be placed before 1986 and you have this: (Maslach & Jackson, 1986; Maslach, 1982)

Response3
We thank the reviewer for pointing out this important detail. We have revised the manuscript to ensure that all multiple citations are consistently listed in chronological order. Specifically, we corrected the citation of Maslach’s works to properly appear as (Maslach, 1982; Maslach & Jackson, 1986) in accordance with citation style guidelines.

4. There is a high dependence on this very old reference: Bass & Avolio (1990). The authors must explore other sources after 1990 to support their work. 

Response4 

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. While Bass & Avolio (1990) is a seminal work in transformational leadership theory, we agree that relying solely on such an early source may overlook the progress made in subsequent decades. We have revised the manuscript by supplementing and partially replacing the dependence on Bass & Avolio (1990) with more recent studies that build on and extend their theory in modern organizational contexts. Notably, we incorporated the following contemporary references to support our arguments

5. 
   Hypotheses must be reformulated for clarity. For instance, you have Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership has an impact on turnover intention. And probably you must write something like Hypothesis 1: Transformational leadership has a positive and direct impact on turnover intention. 

Respose5 We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We have revised all hypotheses in the manuscript to ensure they are clearly and precisely formulated, explicitly stating the direction and nature of the expected relationships. The updated hypotheses enhance readability and align with standard academic conventions.

6. In general, the theoretical background is weak, and all hypotheses deserve a better justification with updated references. 

Response 6 We thank the reviewer for this constructive observation. In response, we have substantially revised the theoretical background section to strengthen its conceptual foundation. We expanded the discussion with additional theoretical perspectives and integrated more recent and relevant references (published after 2020) to reflect contemporary developments in leadership and turnover research. Furthermore, we have enhanced the justification of each hypothesis by explicitly linking it to theoretical constructs and empirical findings from updated literature, providing clearer support for the proposed relationships. These improvements ensure that the theoretical framework is more robust and that the hypotheses are better grounded in current research.

7. Regarding the method, measures (3.4) must be placed before 3.1. In addition, instead of text, include the scales in a table showing all items and sources. 

Response 7 

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have revised the Methodology section to improve its structure and clarity by moving the Measures subsection (previously 3.4) to appear before the Data Collection subsection (previously 3.1). Additionally, we have replaced the textual presentation of the measurement scales with a comprehensive table that lists all constructs, their corresponding items, and the original sources. These changes improve readability and align the section with best practices in presenting methodological details 

8. The hypotheses not validated deserve better explanations.

Response 8 We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have expanded the discussion of the hypotheses that were not statistically supported, providing more detailed explanations grounded in the specific context of the study and supported by relevant literature. These additions help clarify potential reasons why certain mediating effects were not validated, such as industry-specific dynamics, cultural factors, and organizational practices that may moderate these relationships. The revised discussion offers a more nuanced interpretation of the findings and highlights avenues for future research to further explore these complexities.

9. Conclusions must be written linking your results with previous academic literature. 

Response9 We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In response, we have revised the Conclusions section to explicitly link our findings to relevant previous academic literature. The revised conclusion highlights how the results of this study align with, extend, or challenge established research on transformational leadership, emotional exhaustion, employee creativity, and turnover intention. This provides a stronger theoretical grounding for the conclusions and situates the study more clearly within the broader academic discourse.

10. Finally, it is very important to highlight the contribution of your work to this field of research. 

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have explicitly highlighted the theoretical and practical contributions of this study to the field of leadership and employee retention research. The revised manuscript now clearly outlines how the findings extend existing knowledge by examining underexplored mediating mechanisms in a transitional economy context, offering new insights into the role of emotional exhaustion and creativity in the IT sector.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

satisfied

Author Response

Dear Reviwer,

We truly appreciate your careful review and the thoughtful comments you provided. Your feedback has been instrumental in helping us improve the depth and clarity of our work. Thank you for your contribution to strengthening the quality of this manuscript.

Sincerely, 
Authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s);

I think the corrections/amendments you have introduced to the original version are satisfactory. Linking transformational leadership with retention rates and turnover is an issue that has always occupied the minds of decision and policy makers and continues to be a critical issue nowadays.   

Congratulations again on this informative and interesting paper. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviwer, 

We would like to sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments. Your suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and helping us strengthen its academic contribution.

Sincerely,
Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, your manuscript has substantially improved. At this stage, I have only minor concerns: a) The appendix is redundant considering the inclusion of Table 1. I highly recommend eliminating the appendix. Probably different reviewers have demanded the same, one as a table (scales) and the other including the questionnaire, but it is more academic to show the scales, honestly. To offer both elements (table and appendix) would be to repeat the same information in a different version. b) Some mistakes have been introduced like "hypothezes", please check and correct the manuscript. 

Good luck

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to you for the insightful comments and constructive suggestions. Your feedback has been invaluable in helping us improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to each of your remarks and describe the corresponding revisions made to the manuscript. 

Reviwer 3

1. Dear authors, your manuscript has substantially improved. At this stage, I have only minor concerns: a) The appendix is redundant considering the inclusion of Table 1. I highly recommend eliminating the appendix. Probably different reviewers have demanded the same, one as a table (scales) and the other including the questionnaire, but it is more academic to show the scales, honestly. To offer both elements (table and appendix) would be to repeat the same information in a different version. b) Some mistakes have been introduced like "hypothezes", please check and correct the manuscript. 

Response 1

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive feedback.

1. a) Following your recommendation, we have removed the appendix from the manuscript. We agree that presenting both the table of scales and the full questionnaire was redundant. Table 1 now adequately reflects the measurement instruments used in the study, which we believe is a more academically appropriate approach.
2. b) We apologize for the typographical errors that were unintentionally introduced during the revision process, such as “hypothezes.” We have carefully proofread the manuscript and corrected all such mistakes.

We are grateful for your insightful comments, which have helped us to further improve the clarity and overall quality of our work.

Sincerely,

Authors