Exploring the Impact of Front-Line Employees’ Extra Role Behavior on Student Loyalty and Retention in a Semi-Government University in the UAE

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript that has the potential to be published. However, it is necessary to highlight the following:

Contribution to Scholarship:

Relevant and in context with the loyalty and retention of students. 

1.- Introduction:

The introduction provides an adequate context for the theme to be developed. However, it would be advisable to highlight the purpose of the research.

2.- Literature review:

The review of the literature and its relationship with the hypotheses proposed in this research are adequately described.

Also, let me share an article that might be helpful in your review even though it is dated 2009:

Rojas-Méndez, J. I., Vasquez-Parraga, A. Z., Kara, A. L. I., & Cerda-Urrutia, A. (2009). Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in Latin America. Latin American Business Review, 10(1), 21-39.

3.- Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework is adequately described and related whit the hypothesis.

4.- Methods:

The Methods are adequately described and related to the research design and instruments.

5.- Results

Highlight and discuss further details of the results obtained in this research and relate them to the proposed literature review.

6.- Discussion.

The discussion has been adequately discussed. 

7 y 8. – Conclusion and limitation.

The Conclusion and limitations have been adequately discussed. 

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the reviewers’ constructive feedback and comments, which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript further. The authors tried their best to incorporate recommendations and respond to all the comments  from the reviewers. The responses to the reviewers’ comments (point by point) are highlighted in the attached file and manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction is adequate. The aims of the study are laid out and the theoretical contribution is identified. The inclusion of an overarching research question could complement this section. A further improvement could be made to explicitly establish if the paper is aimed at employee satisfaction and/or student retention. This is not immediately apparent and needs to be clarified.

Literature Review

Although this section briefly addresses some of the key elements to be considered in relation to the topic, this section presents an element of repetition especially in section 2.1. Kindly review.

On lines 82-83 the paper states that “applying the SPC model to the proposed research, the ERB of FLEs can be considered crucial to employee satisfaction.” How is this relevant to the focus of the study?  The statement places the focus on employee satisfaction. The link between this statement and the remaining sentences in this paragraph need to be better aligned with the research aims.

Overall, this section is descriptive and lacks a critical outlook. It is a positive recount in favour of the hypotheses set. A more balanced outlook would be required.

The method section presents a one-time study. A pre-post design may have offered opportunities for comparison! Unfortunately, this is missing. The study does not seem to use previously validated scales rendering the section on research instruments weak. How were the questions constructed?

The implications of the issues raised in relation to validity and reliability of the study need to be more appropriately articulated.

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the reviewers’ constructive feedback and comments, which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript further. The authors tried their best to incorporate recommendations and respond to all the comments  from the reviewers. The responses to the reviewers’ comments (point by point) are highlighted in the attached file and manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

My personal opinion is that after reading the paper, the manuscript is of potential interest to the readership of this journal, but there are  issues that must be addressed:

In general:

1. Background – Expand a little more to highlight the research problem to highlight the study's need.

2. Methodology - expand a little more. 

3. Findings: Should align with the study goal. 

Introduction

A concise introduction to enable the reader's understanding of the research problem.

• The introduction should clearly illustrate (1) what we know (the key theoretical perspectives and empirical findings) and what do we not know (major, unaddressed puzzle, controversy, or paradox does the study addresses, or why it needs to be addressed and why this matters). And, (2) what will we learn from the study and how does the study fundamentally change, challenge, or advance scholars’ understanding. Much sharper problematization is required so that the introduction draws the reader into the paper. The introduction therefore needs to do a better job in setting the stage for the articulation of the theoretical contributions of the study. At the end of the introduction, we should have a clear idea of what the paper is about (i.e. its motivation, the gap in understanding that the paper is trying to address and summary of theoretical contributions).

Literature review

The paper should relate coherently and convincingly with issues of real-world significance. This is a crucial phase contributing to research design.

Suggestions

• Add more information to enable readers' understanding of the authors' view.

Methodology

The method should be adequately described to show how the research was conducted to improve clarity and transparency.

Findings and discussion

Needs clear and comprehensive explanations to assist readers' understanding.

Conclusion

The conclusion falls short of providing sufficient information that would allow a reader to understand the contribution of this research.  What was found? 

Reference.

 Authors should use more recent research.

- Using the following reference could be beneficial as these add more evidence to the literature review section:

(2023). The effect of team performance on the internationalization of Digital Startups: the mediating role of entrepreneurship. International Journal of Human Capital in Urban Management, 8(1), 17-30

 Best of luck with the further development of the paper.

It needs to revise. 

Author Response

The authors are grateful for the reviewers’ constructive feedback and comments, which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript further. The authors tried their best to incorporate recommendations and respond to all the comments  from the reviewers. The responses to the reviewers’ comments (point by point) are highlighted in the attached file and manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for resubmitting your article for review. After reading your work, I appreciate that you have tried to make some adjustments to meet the requested changes. Unfortunately, these changes were more often then not cosmetic in nature. The article remains descriptive in most parts.

Unfortunately, the issues raised about the survey questions also remain unresolved. 

I would like to encourage you to think more broadly about the structure of the paper in your literature review and to consider the scientific impact of the research design and data collection methods employed.

Wishing you the best of luck.

minor changes to syntax and sentence structure required in some places

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well.

Based on your comments, we have revised our paper again and read it severely.

Please find attached our responses to your feedback on our manuscript.

Thank you sincerely for your constructive feedback

Regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear author(s)

Hope you are doing well. According to the review of this article, the corrections have been made.

Good luck

Author Response

Dear respected reviewer,

I hope this email finds you well.

Please accept our sincere appreciation for your kind efforts in enhancing our work.

Regards,