The Quality of the Supervisor–Nurse Relationship and Its Influence on Nurses’ Job Satisfaction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a very interesting article with an appropiate research design and adequate use of methods. However, I found the discussion too simple and narrow with very little analysis of how these results contribute, support or differ from other similar studies. The fact that there is a lack of a previous theoretical model or developed research hypotheses limits the framework of the discussion. The authors could reinforce the paper´s contribution by enhancing the connections between theory and practice.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 Overall, I think the manuscript deals with exciting and appropriate issues, i.e., leadership, perceived organisational support, nurses’ work satisfaction, and supervisor-workers interaction. I believe much more empirical research is needed. However, I do think there are some issues in this manuscript that warrant further attention. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for giving me the opportunity of review this paper. Please, see the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript. I think that the research topic is current in many countries. The manuscript is interesting and useful, but some important information is missing, so I will propose major revisions. I hope that the authors will revise the manuscript.

1. Importance: What are the manuscript's strengths? Does it contain new and unique information?

The research topic of this manuscript is important. However, it is not clear for the reader what new information this study brings to the earlier international research literature. That should be highlighted.

Is there a clear statement of the problem and purpose of the study? No, the study objective/aim is not clear, and it needs to be clarified. Objective/aim varies across the text, should be consistent.

No clear research questions have been defined, it would be necessary and reader-friendly to do so and present the research results accordingly.

2. Theory: Is the manuscript logical? Is the theory parsimonious?

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Main concept needs to be clearly defined.

Does the literature review involve a critical appraisal of the literature rather than a description of the literature? Mainly description of the earlier literature, so critical appraisal should be added, and theoretical background needs to be strengthened.

Does it provide an integrated synopsis of what is known and what is not known about a topic? A limited way, not in the broad sense. This needs to be modified.

3. Methodology: Approach? Appropriate design and methods? Is the sample appropriate and adequate? Analysis and interpretation?

Abstract: clear conclusions missing (Conclusions: there seem to be results now)

Keywords: interaction? work or job satisfaction?

Authors do not state how the sample size was calculated, sampling method is also unclear. Sample size needs to be justified.

Is the study context well described? No, study context needs to be described more clearly, and justify. Data collection has been described rather superficially without clear scientific justification.

Is the research design appropriate? Yes, but please clarify the study design

Is the research design stated? No, needs to do so. (e.g. descriptive cross-sectional study)

Is the approach appropriate for the research question? Yes, cross-sectional study and survey are appropriate. Research question(s) needs to be defined.

Are the methods adequately described? No, data collection needs to be described as well as statistical methods used

Is the method of information collection described in enough detail to understand the process? No, data collection needs to be clarified

Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the data? Yes, it is appropriate

Is the method of analysis clearly described? No, all the statistical methods used need to be described in Data analysis section

Is the method of analysis appropriate for the research question? The clear research questions are not defined.

The aim was to confirm > the reader is wondering whether it would have been possible to set hypotheses

Models tested need to be described

4. Results

Do the findings answer the research question? Not clearly, there is no clear research questions.

Are the results clearly presented? The presentation of results should be clarified, with reader friendliness in mind

The background information of the respondents is missing, maybe put in the table

5. Discussion

Does the research relate the findings to previous work? Yes, but only some extent (should be done in more depth). In the discussion the main results are not logically viewed in terms of research questions, which gives a fragmented picture.

6. Adherence to ethical standards:

Is ethical approval for the study and study instruments documented? Yes, but not in all respects.

Has confidentiality been maintained? No found, could be clarified. Informed consent? voluntariness?

Has there been a violation of any accepted norms? Not found

Are appropriate headings and subheadings used to help with the organization of the ideas? Yes, but only partly. Data collection and data analysis, maybe own sections

 Quality and clarity of writing

Is the manuscript easy to read? Yes.

References

Are references current? Yes, seem to be

Are key references included? Yes, seem to be

8. Other comments

Are the strengths and limitations of the study identified? No, needs to do so. The generalizability of the results should be addressed.

Are areas for further inquiry suggested? Yes.

9. Conclusion:

Are the conclusions supported by the results? Clear conclusions are missing

Do the data support the conclusions? Not clearly, conclusions need to be clarified, more far-reaching conclusions should be drawn. Practical implications need to be addressed more clearly.

The reader is not very convinced that the study adds to knowledge in this study area > needs to be highlighted.

I wish all the best for this manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done and best wishes!

Reviewer 3 Report

It must be recognized that the authors have incorporated changes that have notably improved the work. Congratulations.

Reviewer 4 Report

Many thanks for these modifications, good work.

I have no further comments.