Beyond Industry 5.0: Leadership 5.0—Driving Future-Ready Organizations

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the submission. The authors present a theoretical exploration of Leadership 5.0, proposing a comprehensive and actionable conceptual model for mapping Leadership 5.0.

Abstract:

• Line 6, agile, digital, mindsets, should be corrected to agile and digital mindsets
• The abstract has written with very long sentences. Please simplify them. The first 2 sentences are long and needs to be broke down.
• This part needs more theoretical and managerial insights.
• You can also mention how do you bridge the research gap

Introduction:

• Line 30, Whitehead et al, (2020) should be corrected as Whitehead et al. (2020)
• Line 35, ……… (Whitehead et al., 2020). Correct the punctuation.
• Introduction is too short. Please add more information about I5.0, and the comparison of I4.0 and I5.0. You can use the following papers:

 

• Sariisik, G., & Demir, S. (2025). Industry 5.0: A Human-Centric Paradigm for Sustainable and Resilient Industrial Transformation. Journal of Social Perspective Studies, 2(2), 50-66. 
• Lou, S., Hu, Z., Zhang, Y., Feng, Y., Zhou, M., & Lv, C. (2024). Human-cyber-physical system for industry 5.0: A review from a human-centric perspective. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 22, 494-511.
• Xu, X., Lu, Y., Vogel-Heuser, B., & Wang, L. (2021). Industry 4.0 and Industry 5.0—Inception, conception and perception. Journal of manufacturing systems, 61, 530-535.

 

• You briefly mentioned how you bridge the gap in the literature. I expect you write a longer research gap and mention how your paper help to bridge the research gap in the body of knowledge.

Literature Review:

• In table 1, you mentioned 3 types of leadership. You should explain why you include and focus on these three types of leadership. Some reader might ask you don’t you include more types. Hence you need to add an explanation for it.
• You need to add more explanation for table 1 below it.
• Lines 76-80, you give some information about I4.0 which looks nice but too short. Please include more aspects about the 4^th Industrial Revolution. You can consult the following paper if needed:
• Demir, S., Paksoy, T., & Kochan, C. G. (2020). A conceptual framework for Industry 4.0:(How is it started, How is it evolving over time?). In Logistics 4.0(pp. 1-14). CRC Press.

 

• Line 84, the Fifth Industrial Revolution, with capital letters.
• Add more about Industry 5.0 in this part. You can use the three research papers mentioned above in introduction section.
• Line 106, Schnell et al., (2022), no comma needed.
• Line 109, correct the writing for 120 206 to 120,206 or 120206
• Line 124, table 2 title should start with capital letter.
• Table 2 includes only 9 papers, is there any reason you did not include more papers? Please explain.
• Figure 1 is copied and pasted. What is the source? Where was it taken from? Also, the figure caption should start with capital letter.

 

3. Leadership 5.0 Survey questionnaire scale development

• Line 232, comfort able, remove space.
• Line 241, correct subtitle, purpose-driven
• Line 242, purpose-driven

4. Data collection Leadership 5.0 scale items

          1- Remove period at the subtitle, after items

          2- Line 324, one third should be corrected as one-third 

• Data analysis section is vague. I recommend adding a flow chart and explain how you analyze data in detail. You mention about the aggregated score, please show how you calculate these scores. You can add formulas and calculation as an appendix at the end.

 

 

5. Discussion

• Figure 2 should be re-checked, the letters of each bar are not easy to read.
• Line 367, these results.
• Add more managerial insight in this section. You can add references that support or contrast your findings.

 

6. Conclusions

• Conclusion should be numbered as 6, not 5.
• Line 406, remove the phrase “All studies have limitations, as is the case with this present study.”
• Line 407, use L5.0
• Lines 407-413 are confusing, please re-write this paragraph.
• Conclusion missing limitations of the study, please add it.
• Conclusion missing future direction of the study, please add it.
• There are many grammar, punctuation, styling errors throughout the paper. Please read it very carefully and correct them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• There are many grammatical, punctuation, and styling errors throughout the paper. Please read it carefully and make any necessary corrections.

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the valuable insights and recommendations for revisions from the reviewers for our manuscript ‘Beyond Industry 5.0: Leadership 5.0- Driving Future Ready Organizations’

We truly appreciate the detailed feedback which has greatly contributed to the improved quality of the manuscript. Please see below our comments to the reviews’ revision recommendations below, in bold.

 

Comments from Reviewer 1

Thank you for the submission. The authors present a theoretical exploration of Leadership 5.0, proposing a comprehensive and actionable conceptual model for mapping Leadership 5.0.

Thank you for your positive feedback.

Abstract:

• Line 6, agile, digital, mindsets, should be corrected to agile and digital mindsets: Now corrected thank you.
• The abstract has written with very long sentences. Please simplify them. The first 2 sentences are long and needs to be broke down. Now amended thank you.
• This part needs more theoretical and managerial insights. Additions added thank you.
• You can also mention how do you bridge the research gap Now discussed, thank you.

Introduction:

• Line 30, Whitehead et al, (2020) should be corrected as Whitehead et al. (2020). Now amended thank you
• Line 35, ……… (Whitehead et al., 2020). Correct the punctuation. Now amended thank you.
• Introduction is too short. Please add more information about I5.0, and the comparison of I4.0 and I5.0. You can use the following papers: Many thanks, introduction now extended in line with your recommendations.

 

• You briefly mentioned how you bridge the gap in the literature. I expect you write a longer research gap and mention how your paper help to bridge the research gap in the body of knowledge. Very good point, this is now profiled.

Literature Review:

• In table 1, you mentioned 3 types of leadership. You should explain why you include and focus on these three types of leadership. Some reader might ask you don’t you include more types. Hence you need to add an explanation for it. Section now developed further, thank you for excellent advice.
• You need to add more explanation for table 1 below it. Very good point, thank you.
• Lines 76-80, you give some information about I4.0 which looks nice but is too short. Please include more aspects about the 4^th Industrial Revolution. You can consult the following paper if needed: Thank you for your valuable comment, this section has now been extended.

 

• Line 84, the Fifth Industrial Revolution, with capital letters. Amended, thank you.
• Add more about Industry 5.0 in this part. You can use the three research papers mentioned above in introduction section. Added now, thank you.
• Line 106, Schnell et al., (2022), no comma needed. Amended, thank you.
• Line 109, correct the writing for 120 206 to 120,206 or 120206. Amended, thank you.
• Line 124, table 2 title should start with capital letter. Amended, thank you.
• Table 2 includes only 9 papers; is there any reason you did not include more papers? Please explain. Please see PRISMA flow chart for transparency of the process, with inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thank you for raising this issue, we have carried out a new search to ensure the robustness and transparency of our literature review.
• Figure 1 is copied and pasted. What is the source? Where was it taken from? Also, the figure caption should start with capital letter. Thank you for this comment. The source is a synthesis of key terms from a manual qualitative analysis of the relevant articles. A GenAI software program created the visual figure.

 

3. Leadership 5.0 Survey questionnaire scale development

• Line 232, comfort able, remove space. Amended thank you.
• Line 241, correct subtitle, purpose-driven. Amended thank you.
• Line 242, purpose-driven, Amended thank you.

1. Data collection Leadership 5.0 scale items

          1- Remove period at the subtitle, after items. Amended thank you.

          2- Line 324, one third should be corrected as one-third Amended thank you

• Data analysis section is vague. I recommend adding a flow chart and explain how you analyze data in detail.  Thank you for this advice. A flow chart has now been added to outline the research flow from design, concept definitions, data collection and analysis to discussion of findings and conclusions. Each sub-area consists of a number of steps to develop the research from concept to survey and final analysis.  
• You mention about the aggregated score, please show how you calculate these scores. You can add formulas and calculation as an appendix at the end. Thank you for this valuable advice. Amended thank you Each response for a dimension of a given concept represents a value between 1-7 in the Likert scale. The respective values start with 1 = totally disagree with all statements and conclude with 7 = totally agree with all statements. Aggregated scores for all dimensions are calculated by adding together the scores for each item and then dividing the total score by the number of items. 

5. Discussion

• Figure 2 should be re-checked, the letters of each bar are not easy to read. Amended thank you: The legend has been improved and fonts enlarged for better legibility.
• Line 367, these results. Corrected
• Add more managerial insight in this section. You can add references that support or contrast your findings. - 1) sentences with regard to managerial insights this suggests, 2) discuss the so what for managers Amended thank you: From a management perspective, this indicates that considerate and innovative leadership traits are quite well represented in the survey results. Yet in comparison, human centric leadership scores the lowest overall As human centricity is one of the five key pillars of L5.0, and a cornerstone of Industry 5.0, this result suggests that human-centric leadership and emotional intelligence might be areas to pay attention to for companies planning to implement Industry 5.0 models. Further comparison of the aggregate scores in Figure 2 above shows the constructs of inclusivity and collaboration together with future readiness and adaptability a median result of 4.9 and 4.97 respectively. In comparison, human-centric leadership and emotional intelligence received the overall lowest aggregate scores with 4.62. These results indicate that within the respondent group, L.5.0 attitudes human-centric leadership and emotional intelligence factors ranked overall lowest and the constructs focusing on adaptability and collaborative culture items in the middle, while ethical, purpose-driven leadership and innovation mindset scored the highest. It could be argued that human-centric leadership skills are particularly important when AI-driven automation is already paving the way for job cuts in global technology companies. Similar effects are likely to be felt in less technical environments with some lag. But leadership needs to start making pre-emptive decisions today.  Please note, as questions 1 and 2 both measure human centric leadership and emotional intelligence, both score were combined. As a result, we assessed five different dimensions.

 

6. Conclusions

• Conclusion should be numbered as 6, not 5. Amended thank you.
• Line 406, remove the phrase “All studies have limitations, as is the case with this present study.” Amended thank you.
• Line 407, use L5.0. Amended thank you.
• Lines 407-413 are confusing, please re-write this paragraph. Amended thank you.
• Conclusion missing limitations of the study, please add it. Amended thank you.
• Conclusion missing future direction of the study, please add it. Amended thank you.
• There are many grammar, punctuation, styling errors throughout the paper. Please read it very carefully and correct them. Amended thank you.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are many grammatical, punctuation, and styling errors throughout the paper. Please read it carefully and make any necessary corrections. Amended thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

You submitted an interesting manuscript elaborating on a people‑centric, ethically grounded, innovation‑driven leadership approach that is aligned with Industry 5.0. The proposed article is timely and potentially valuable for leadership in the contemporary context. However, there are certain segments that could benefit from the improvements to enhance the clarity and contribution of the proposed manuscript.

Comment 1. Can you further elaborate on why you put "L5.0" for "Leadership 5.0"? It is well-known that certain authors used "I5.0" for "Industry 5.0" (for example, Whitehead et al. (2025) in their study regarding Strategic Leadership 5.0), but I am not familiar with L5.0. There is a possibility that this could be mistaken for medical terms, so I suggest deleting this abbreviation.

Comment 2. Even later, you use "L.50" which is medical code for urticaria. Line 367.

Comment 3. You announced a “comprehensive and actionable conceptual model” and a “validated” assessment that assesses the maturity of Leadership 5.0, but there seems to be an issue with the number of respondents. How many respondents were there? Is that enough to deliver what you promised in the abstract and introduction?

Comment 4. The number of used references does not add up. From more than 120,000 publications, you used only nine. Can you further elaborate?

Comment 5. The search strings, date limits, inclusion and exclusion rules, and screening flow are not transparent.

Comment 6. You could also use PRISMA or similar flow diagram.

Comment 7. You only employed face‑validity checks and descriptive aggregation. You should further develop this area and use also expert content validity and reliability (α and McDonald’s ω), or explain why you excluded these statistical methods.

Comment 8. The paper lacks a clear definition of Leadership 5.0.

Comment 9. There are only 18 references from the past five years (2025 - 3, 2024 - 3, 2023 - 5, 2022 - 4, 2021 - 3). You should include more recent references to demonstrate that the study took into consideration the most recent developments in the field.

Comment 10. Some references are not correctly listed. For example, lines 431, 437-438, etc.

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the valuable insights and recommendations for revisions from the reviewers for our manuscript ‘Beyond Industry 5.0: Leadership 5.0- Driving Future Ready Organizations’

We truly appreciate the detailed feedback which has greatly contributed to the improved quality of the manuscript. Please see below our comments to the reviews’ revision recommendations below, in bold.

 

Feedback from reviewer 2

Dear authors,

You submitted an interesting manuscript elaborating on a people‑centric, ethically grounded, innovation‑driven leadership approach that is aligned with Industry 5.0. The proposed article is timely and potentially valuable for leadership in the contemporary context. However, there are certain segments that could benefit from the improvements to enhance the clarity and contribution of the proposed manuscript. Many thanks for your positive feedback.

Comment 1. Can you further elaborate on why you put "L5.0" for "Leadership 5.0"? It is well-known that certain authors used "I5.0" for "Industry 5.0" (for example, Whitehead et al. (2025) in their study regarding Strategic Leadership 5.0), but I am not familiar with L5.0. There is a possibility that this could be mistaken for medical terms, so I suggest deleting this abbreviation.

Comment 2. Even later, you use "L.50" which is medical code for urticaria. Line 367.

Thank you for such valuable insights. We now introduce the abbreviation more clearly within the leadership context.

Comment 3. You announced a “comprehensive and actionable conceptual model” and a “validated” assessment that assesses the maturity of Leadership 5.0, but there seems to be an issue with the number of respondents. How many respondents were there? Is that enough to deliver what you promised in the abstract and introduction? - we do deliver on that, face validity (real life match) - well developed, pilot    n=16. Larger surveys in additional countries will follow after the first concept test and discussion in this paper.

Comment 4. The number of references used does not add up. From more than 120,000 publications, you used only nine. Can you further elaborate? Comment 5. The search strings, date limits, inclusion and exclusion rules, and screening flow are not transparent. Comment 6. You could also use PRISMA or similar flow diagram. Sincere thanks for your valuable feedback. We have now used the 2009 PRISMA flow diagram and elaborate on all these points.

Comment 7. You only employed face validity checks and descriptive aggregation. You should further develop this area and use also expert content validity and reliability (α and McDonald’s ω), or explain why you excluded these statistical methods – Cronbach alpha (at least 0,7), 1, 2, 3, 4 testing emotional intelligence – explain the tradition – for all the factors Amended thank you A Cronbach Alpha validation was added for the survey.

Cronbach's Alpha
Example: Item 1 (non-combined)	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	4	4	4	94	5,875	MEAN
	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	0,125	1,125	-0,875	0,875	-1,875	-1,875	-1,875	-1,875			DEV
	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	0,015625	1,265625	0,765625	0,765625	3,515625	3,515625	3,515625	3,515625	27		VAR
																	1,6875
Human-centric Leadership and EI	7	7	6,5	6,5	6	6	6	6	5	5	3,5	3,5	3	3	3	3
Future Readiness and Digital Adaptability	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4
Sustainabikity and Ethical Leadership	7	7	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	3	3
Inclusivity and Collaboration	7	7	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3
Innovation-driven Mindset	7	7	6	6	6	6	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	2	2

The analysis returns a very good Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,948. The result indicates very high internal consistency of the data, i.e. the scale is measuring very homogenously.

 

Comment 8. The paper lacks a clear definition of Leadership 5.0. Amended thank you.

Comment 9. There are only 18 references from the past five years (2025 - 3, 2024 - 3, 2023 - 5, 2022 - 4, 2021 - 3). You should include more recent references to demonstrate that the study took into consideration the most recent developments in the field. Amended thank you.

Comment 10. Some references are not correctly listed. For example, lines 431, 437-438, etc. Amended thank you

 

Many thanks indeed to your detailed and insightful points to revise.  Our best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author

Although your paper is very well written and adresses an important topic, there are some issues that need to be solved:

1. Abstract and Introduction (Please see pdf)

Some sentences need rephrasing for precision and fluency. The gap needs to be explicit in the introduction. there is the need of references throughout the manuscript. Lacks of central question. Explicitly the theorectical and practical contributions.The last paragraph needs the paper structure. 

2. Literature review

Table 1 needs to be referenced. The need for references. make the connection between industry 5.0 and leadership 5.0. ensure smoth transitions. Conceptual model development should be in the methodology. 

3. Methodology

Clearly indicate the exact number of articles after the refinement. What method are you using (bibliometric, SLR, PRISMA). You present a questionnaire but that information regarding the sample is not on the abstract. If a questionnaire was presented in this manuscript, what and where are the results? Where is the sociodemographic Table? How the results were validated? Also, if indeed are these results, add a point with the title results.


4. Discussion

The discussion is the correlation between the LR and the data, please adress this concern.

5. Conclusions

Add missing sections:

Theorectical implications
Practical implications
Limitations and Future research


Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the valuable insights and recommendations for revisions from the reviewers for our manuscript ‘Beyond Industry 5.0: Leadership 5.0- Driving Future Ready Organizations’

We truly appreciate the detailed feedback which has greatly contributed to the improved quality of the manuscript. Please see below our comments to the reviews’ revision recommendations below, in bold.

 

Reviewer 3

Dear author

Although your paper is very well written and adresses an important topic, there are some issues that need to be solved: Thank you for your positive feedback

1. Abstract and Introduction (Please see pdf)

Some sentences need rephrasing for precision and fluency. The gap needs to be explicit in the introduction. There is the need of references throughout the manuscript. Lacks central question. Explicitly the theoretical and practical contributions. The last paragraph needs the paper structure. Amended thank you

2. Literature review

Table 1 needs to be referenced. The need for references. make the connection between industry 5.0 and leadership 5.0. ensure smooth transitions. Amended thank you Conceptual model development should be in the methodology. We have added a clarifying sub-title to this section.

3. Methodology

Clearly indicate the exact number of articles after the refinement. What method are you using (bibliometric, SLR, PRISMA). Amended thank you.

You present a questionnaire but that information regarding the sample is not in the abstract. If a questionnaire was presented in this manuscript, what and where are the results? Results now clearly profiled. Where is the sociodemographic Table? In a larger study with sociodemographic data collected in future studies this will be added. How the results were validated? Cronbach’s Alpha. Also, if indeed are these results, add a point with the title results. Amended thank you - additional table on gender, only two variables (hence do not ethical board approval) The survey questions have been added to the appendix.

4. Discussion

The discussion is the correlation between the LR and the data, please address this concern. -the LR suggests x the data supports it. Thank you for your insights, as this is a small pilot study, we do not specifically discuss the correlation between LR and the data. This will be carried out in the next, larger data collection. Discussion section has been developed further: A Cronbach Alpha validation was added for the survey.

Following analysis was performed with Excel:

Cronbach's Alpha
Example: Item 1 (non-combined)	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	4	4	4	94	5,875	MEAN
	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	1,125	0,125	1,125	-0,875	0,875	-1,875	-1,875	-1,875	-1,875			DEV
	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	1,265625	0,015625	1,265625	0,765625	0,765625	3,515625	3,515625	3,515625	3,515625	27		VAR
																	1,6875
Human-centric Leadership and EI	7	7	6,5	6,5	6	6	6	6	5	5	3,5	3,5	3	3	3	3
Future Readiness and Digital Adaptability	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	6	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4
Sustainabikity and Ethical Leadership	7	7	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	4	4	3	3
Inclusivity and Collaboration	7	7	7	7	6	6	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3
Innovation-driven Mindset	7	7	6	6	6	6	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	5	2	2

The analysis returns a very good Cronbach’s Alpha of 0,948. The result indicates very high internal consistency of the data, i.e. the scale is measuring very homogenously.

 

5. 
   Conclusions: Add missing sections: Theoretical implications. Practical implications
   Limitations and Future research Amended thank you, many thanks for your valuable feedback, with such details.
   
   

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main question addressed by the research is how to define, conceptualize, and operationalize "Leadership 5.0" as a new leadership paradigm suited to the demands of the Industry 5.0 era, culminating in the development of a measurable framework and a preliminary survey instrument.

The topic is highly relevant and timely, aligning with the emerging discourse on Industry 5.0. It addresses a specific and clear gap in the field, which is the lack of a consolidated conceptual model and a validated tool to measure the presence and maturity of Leadership 5.0 principles in organizations.

While other publications have discussed the concept of Leadership 5.0, this article adds significant value by synthesizing the literature into a concrete five-pillar model and, most notably, by developing and conducting initial pilot testing on a 30-item survey instrument designed to measure these pillars. This moves the concept from pure theory towards empirical assessment.

The data analysis should be expanded beyond simple aggregation to include basic psychometric validation, such as calculating internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) for each of the five constructs. A confirmatory factor analysis would be necessary for a full validation in a subsequent study.

The conclusions regarding the theoretical model are consistent and well-supported by the literature review. The conclusions based on the empirical pilot data are appropriately cautious and framed as preliminary, which is consistent with the limited evidence provided. 

The references are appropriate and cover the necessary theoretical ground. However, the reference list requires careful proofreading to correct formatting errors, incomplete entries, and duplicates (e.g., the two identical entries for Serrano & Mosquera-Bolanos, 2022).

Table 1 and Table 2 are useful summaries. Figure 1 (conceptual mapping of the 5 pillars) and Figure 2 (aggregate scores) are referenced but not included in the provided PDF manuscript. Their inclusion is critical for the reader to fully evaluate the paper's contributions and results.

The English is generally good and comprehensible. There are a few instances of minor grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and typographical errors that require correction. Examples include:

• "demanding innovative leaders to adopt agile, digital, mindsets, and fostering innovation whilst balancing human and technological needs together" (awkward comma use and phrasing).
• "by building collaborative innovation between humans and machines" (should be "collaboration between").
• "We develop a parsimonious 30-item L5.0 survey instrument, anchored in the literature and we conduct..." (comma splice).
• "With added just 2 demographic items" (incorrect word order).
• "a more clearer understanding" (should be "a clearer" or "a more clear").

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for the valuable insights and recommendations for revisions from the reviewers for our manuscript ‘Beyond Industry 5.0: Leadership 5.0- Driving Future Ready Organizations’

We truly appreciate the detailed feedback which has greatly contributed to the improved quality of the manuscript. Please see below our comments to the reviews’ revision recommendations below, in bold.

Feedback from reviewer 4

The main question addressed by the research is how to define, conceptualize, and operationalize "Leadership 5.0" as a new leadership paradigm suited to the demands of the industry 5.0 era, culminating in the development of a measurable framework and a preliminary survey instrument.

The topic is highly relevant and timely, aligning with the emerging discourse on Industry 5.0. It addresses a specific and clear gap in the field, which is the lack of a consolidated conceptual model and a validated tool to measure the presence and maturity of Leadership 5.0 principles in organizations.

While other publications have discussed the concept of Leadership 5.0, this article adds significant value by synthesizing the literature into a concrete five-pillar model and, most notably, by developing and conducting initial pilot testing on a 30-item survey instrument designed to measure these pillars. This moves the concept from pure theory towards empirical assessment. Many thanks for your positive feedback

The data analysis should be expanded beyond simple aggregation to include basic psychometric validation, such as calculating internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) for each of the five constructs. A confirmatory factor analysis would be necessary for a full validation in a subsequent study. - use Cronbachs alpha (on each of the five constructs), confirmatory factor analysis (Pearson table overlap). Many thanks for your feedback. Amended thank you: Internal consistency was checked with Cronbach's Alpha, as suggested. The assessment was done with Excel, which was possible due to the size of the data set. The analysis returned a value of 9.48 for Cronbach's Alpha,  

The conclusions regarding the theoretical model are consistent and well-supported by the literature review. The conclusions based on the empirical pilot data are appropriately cautious and framed as preliminary, which is consistent with the limited evidence provided. Thank you.

The references are appropriate and cover the necessary theoretical ground. However, the reference list requires careful proofreading to correct formatting errors, incomplete entries, and duplicates (e.g., the two identical entries for Serrano & Mosquera-Bolanos, 2022). Amended thank you.

Table 1 and Table 2 are useful summaries. Figure 1 (conceptual mapping of the 5 pillars) and Figure 2 (aggregate scores) are referenced but not included in the provided PDF manuscript. Their inclusion is critical for the reader to fully evaluate the paper's contributions and results.

Amended thank you.

The English is generally good and comprehensible. There are a few instances of minor grammatical errors, awkward phrasing, and typographical errors that require correction. Examples include:

• "demanding innovative leaders to adopt agile, digital, mindsets, and fostering innovation whilst balancing human and technological needs together" (awkward comma use and phrasing). Amended thank you.
• "by building collaborative innovation between humans and machines" (should be "collaboration between"). Amended thank you.
• "We develop a parsimonious 30-item L5.0 survey instrument, anchored in the literature and we conduct..." (comma splice). Amended thank you.
• "With added just 2 demographic items" (incorrect word order). - Amended thank you
• "a more clearer understanding" (should be "a clearer" or "a more clear"). Amended thank you

Please see the two documents submitted:

• Revised manuscript with track changes to review all revisions and developments.
• Revised manuscript ‘clean’, no track changes – with all tables and figures embedded in the document

 

Again, may we thank the expert reviews and editor for such detailed and valuable feedback.

 

Kind regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Figure 2 reference is missing. You cannot add a figure from another source without citing the source.

The sample articles I recommend would strengthen the paper. The authors prefer not to include them.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are most grateful for your detailed reviews. Please see revised manuscript with track changes. You will see that we have significantly developed the figures, as well as the methods section, results section and conclusions section. Thank you for reminding us of the value of the articles you recommended we to refer to in discussion of industry 4.0 and industry 5.0. We have now utilized two of the three articles to help strengthen this section further. All figures are now labelled correctly and sources where relevant are cited.

Our thanks and best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the revised iteration of your manuscript and your responses, which elaborated on the changes you made to your paper. I am satisfied with the current iteration.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Our sincere thanks for your positive feedback in this second review. May we thank you again for your rigorous feedback in round one of the revisions which helped us greatly to complete these final revisions.

Our best regards