Validation of the Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate Scale: A Unidimensional Approach Based on Victor and Cullen’s (1988) Ethical Climate Theory

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires significant revisions to resolve critical inconsistencies in the presentation and interpretation of results, strengthen the narrative flow, and ensure methodological clarity before it can be considered for publication.

• Page 10 vs. Page 11 KMO: The manuscript reports a KMO of 0.91 on page 10 ("meritorious") but shows a KMO of 0.456 in Figure 1 on page 11 ("inadequate"). This is a direct contradiction that undermines the entire factor analysis foundation. This must be resolved. Figure 1 (KMO=0.456) and its accompanying text (p.11, lines 450-468) appear to be a severe error, as they contradict the rest of the results section (which shows successful EFA/CFA). The authors must verify the correct KMO value and remove or comprehensively correct the erroneous section (p.11, Fig.1, and related text).

• Page 7 vs. Page 14 Reliability: Page 7 (Methodology) reports extremely weak initial findings (KMO=0.456, p=.328, low communalities). Page 14 reports a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.93. Furthermore, Figure 4 on page 14/15 reports a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.108, which directly contradicts the 0.93 reported in the main text. 
• The Abstract mentions a "strong one-factor solution explaining 47% of the variance," but the Results section (p.10, line 434) initially states, "The total variance explained by the first factor was only 4.675%."
• The theoretical implications section could delve deeper into why the unidimensional model is superior, not just that it is.
• The language is generally good but requires proofreading for minor grammatical errors and smoother transitions between sections.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your detailed and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you invested in reviewing our work. Your feedback was instrumental in identifying key areas requiring clarification and improvement. In response, we have undertaken a comprehensive revision of the manuscript, with particular emphasis on Chapter 4 (Results), to resolve all reported inconsistencies, improve narrative coherence, and strengthen methodological clarity.

Below, we outline how each of your comments has been addressed in the revised manuscript.

First, regarding the reported inconsistencies in the Results section, we fully agree with your assessment. Chapter 4 has been completely rewritten and reorganised to ensure a single, internally consistent empirical narrative. All contradictory statistics, duplicated outputs, and redundant analyses have been removed, and all tables and reported values are now fully aligned with the accompanying text.

With respect to the contradiction between the reported KMO values (0.91 versus 0.456), we acknowledge this as a critical error in the earlier draft. The KMO value of 0.456 and its associated figure and text were traced to an erroneous preliminary output and have been entirely removed. The manuscript now consistently reports the verified KMO value of 0.91, alongside a significant Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (p < .001), as presented in Section 4.2 and Table 2, thereby restoring the statistical foundation for the factor analysis.

Regarding the reliability inconsistencies (Cronbach’s α = 0.93 versus α = 0.108), we again fully agree with your concern. The α = 0.108 value originated from a mis-specified preliminary reliability output and has been deleted in its entirety. The revised manuscript now reports reliability consistently and exclusively using the final estimates (Cronbach’s α = 0.93; Composite Reliability = 0.95), as shown in Section 4.5 and Table 6.

You also correctly noted the inconsistency between the abstract and the Results section concerning the variance explained by the first factor. The incorrect statement reporting 4.675% variance has been removed. The manuscript now consistently reports a single dominant factor explaining 47.1% of total variance, as presented in Section 4.3, Table 4, and the revised abstract, ensuring full alignment across sections.

In response to your suggestion to strengthen the theoretical implications, we have expanded this section to briefly explain why a unidimensional ethical climate model may be more appropriate in the context of Emirati higher education institutions. The revised discussion highlights the role of institutional cohesion and shared normative environments in shaping unified ethical perceptions, while remaining grounded in the empirical findings.

Finally, we have revised the manuscript to improve overall language clarity and narrative flow, particularly within the Results section. Minor grammatical and formatting issues will be addressed during final proofreading to further enhance readability.

We sincerely thank you again for your valuable feedback. We believe that these substantial revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s clarity, coherence, and methodological rigor, and we hope that the revised version now meets the journal’s standards for publication.

Kindly find the comments marker in the document as Reviewer 1 Comment (x) and the notes we prepared to tackle each issue very carefully. 

Kind regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an interesting topic, and I congratulate the authors for tackling it.

It offers a different perspective from the Western one that usually prevails in journals.

The conceptual justification for treating the concept as unidimensional, although lengthy and verbose, is quite convincing.

However, the data analysis is quite confusing. I cannot understand the order of the decisions made, nor the elements that support the claims of the construct's unidimensionality.

It is unclear how many databases were used, whether only one or two. Sometimes, it seems that one database was used with the indicators from Victor and Cullen (1988) and another database with the indicators from the Holistic Ethical Climate Scale described on page 8.

In any case, the presentation of the results is confusing. The text refers to tables as figures. And these tables, called figures, have a format that does not facilitate their reading, at least not on a computer screen. The content of the tables does not coincide with that of the text. The tables indicate that the data are not suitable for factor analysis, and the text says the opposite. For example, on page 10, line 447, it says that the KMO is 0.91, and on line 453, the KMO value is 0.456. A low KMO value leads to the elimination of variables to increase it, but it is unclear whether this was done. And if it was done, which variables were excluded from the analysis?

The data analysis should be presented in the sequence of analysis procedures. What set of variables generated an acceptable KMO, and what is that value? In the next step, it is necessary to report the explained variance, the eigenvalues and communality of the variables, and the scree plot that led to the decision on the number of factors to be extracted. This sequence of steps is well described in Hair's book (2009), which is listed in the paper's references.

Throughout the text, conflicting values of reliability indicators are presented.

Another point that draws attention is the discussion of the data's skewness and kurtosis. If the Shapiro-Wilk test did not show deviations from Normality, why evaluate skewness and kurtosis?

In short, the data analysis has problems with form, content conflicts, the sequence of presentation of its elements, the logic and support for the decisions made, and a lack of elements to support the conclusion of the unidimensionality of the construct of interest – ethical climate.

I think that (1) the data analysis needs to be reviewed and reorganized, (2) and a discussion is needed that eliminates the possibility that the construct of interest is not a formative construct, instead of a reflexive one (which is how it is treated throughout the text).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I believe that having a native English speaker proofread the text is necessary to enhance its quality.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for your thoughtful and constructive comments, as well as for your positive assessment of the topic and conceptual contribution of the manuscript. We particularly appreciate your recognition of the non-Western perspective and the conceptual justification for examining ethical climate as a unidimensional construct. Your methodological comments were extremely valuable and prompted a substantial revision and re-organisation of the data analysis section.

Below, we respond to each of your concerns in detail and explain how they have been addressed in the revised manuscript.

1. Confusion regarding the order and logic of data analysis decisions

We fully agree with this concern. In response, Chapter 4 (Results) has been completely rewritten and restructured to follow a clear and standard analytical sequence consistent with Hair et al. (2009). The revised Results section now presents the analyses in the following explicit order:

1. Preliminary data screening and assumption checks

2. Sampling adequacy (KMO and Bartlett’s Test)

3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (eigenvalues, variance explained, communalities, and factor loadings)

4. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

5. Reliability and validity assessment

6. Model comparison (one-factor vs. five-factor)

This reorganisation clarifies the logic of each decision and ensures transparency in how the conclusion of unidimensionality was reached.

Location in revised manuscript: Section 4 (entire Results section)

2. Concern about multiple databases and different sets of indicators

We appreciate this important clarification request. We confirm that only one dataset was used throughout the analysis. All analyses were conducted on a single sample of 200 respondents, using the 26-item EHEC scale, which was derived from Victor and Cullen’s (1988) Ethical Climate Theory and contextually adapted for Emirati higher education institutions.

To avoid any remaining ambiguity, we have now explicitly stated this in the manuscript and clarified that no separate databases or parallel indicator sets were used.

Text added to manuscript: All analyses were conducted on a single dataset comprising 200 responses. The study employed one measurement instrument which is the the 26-item Emirati Higher Education Institutions Ethical Climate (EHEC) scale adapted from Victor and Cullen’s (1988) ethical climate framework. No additional datasets or alternative item pools were used in the analyses.

Location: Section 4.3 (Exploratory Factor Analysis)

3. Tables, figures, and contradictions (KMO, suitability for factor analysis)

We fully agree with this critique and thank the reviewer for identifying these issues. In the revised manuscript:

• All erroneous outputs (e.g., KMO = 0.456) have been removed

• The Results section now reports only the verified KMO value (0.91)

• All tables are consistently labeled as Tables, not Figures

• Each table now corresponds directly to the surrounding text, with no conflicting values

The issue of low KMO values and variable elimination no longer arises, as the retained KMO value (0.91) confirms excellent sampling adequacy, and no variables were excluded from the final analysis.

Location: Section 4.2 (Sampling Adequacy), Table 2

4. Sequence of factor-analytic reporting (Hair, 2009)

We agree entirely and have revised the Results section to follow the sequence recommended by Hair et al. (2009). The revised manuscript now explicitly reports:

• KMO and Bartlett’s Test before factor extraction

• Eigenvalues and total variance explained

• Communalities and factor loadings

• Decision criteria (scree plot and eigenvalue dominance)

Although the scree plot is not reproduced for brevity, its role in supporting the unidimensional solution is now clearly stated in the text.

Text added to manuscript: The decision to retain a single factor was based on the dominance of the first eigenvalue, the sharp decline in subsequent eigenvalues, and inspection of the scree plot, consistent with established guidelines for factor retention (Hair et al., 2009).

Location: Section 4.3 (EFA)

5. Conflicting reliability indicators

We fully agree. All conflicting reliability outputs have been removed. The revised manuscript now reports only one set of reliability statistics, derived from the final measurement model (Cronbach’s α = 0.93; CR = 0.95). No contradictory values remain in the text or tables.

Location: Section 4.5 (Reliability Analysis), Table 6

6. Skewness, kurtosis, and normality testing

We appreciate this methodological point. Skewness and kurtosis are now reported only as descriptive diagnostics, while the Shapiro–Wilk test is presented as the formal test of normality. The revised text clarifies that skewness and kurtosis were assessed to describe distributional shape rather than to override the normality test.

Text added to manuscript: Skewness and kurtosis were examined as descriptive indicators of distributional shape, while the Shapiro–Wilk test was used as the primary statistical test of normality.

Location: Section 4.1 (Preliminary Data Screening)

7. Reflexive vs. formative construct specification

We thank the reviewer for raising this important theoretical issue. To address this concern, we have now explicitly justified the reflexive treatment of ethical climate. Ethical climate is conceptualised as a shared perceptual environment that gives rise to observable indicators (e.g., fairness, integrity, ethical decision-making), rather than being formed by them.

Text added to manuscript: Ethical climate is modeled as a reflexive construct, as the observed indicators are understood to reflect a shared underlying moral environment rather than to form it. Changes in ethical climate are therefore expected to manifest across indicators simultaneously, consistent with established climate research. Location: Methodology or Measurement Model section (prior to CFA)

Kindly find the comments attached to the paper as Reviewer 2 comment x 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their rigorous and constructive feedback. The manuscript has been substantially strengthened through the complete reorganisation of the data analysis, clarification of the analytical sequence, removal of conflicting outputs, and explicit justification of key modeling decisions. We believe that the revised version now presents a transparent, methodologically sound, and well-supported case for the unidimensional structure of ethical climate in the Emirati higher education context.

Kind regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the manuscript is of high quality and suitable for publication, a few minor issues should be addressed to further strengthen it:

1. Length and redundancy
   Some sections of the Introduction, Literature Review, and Results contain conceptual repetition.

2. Tone when discussing multidimensional models
   At times, the discussion adopts a somewhat strong or dismissive tone toward traditional multidimensional ethical climate frameworks.

3. Convergent validity (AVE)
   Although the AVE value is acceptable given the high composite reliability, this limitation could be acknowledged more explicitly in the Discussion section to enhance transparency.

4. Minor language and stylistic polishing
   A final proofreading pass would help eliminate minor grammatical issues and further improve flow, particularly in longer explanatory paragraphs.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful evaluation of our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions provided. We are pleased that the manuscript was considered to be of high quality and suitable for publication. In response to the comments, we have undertaken targeted revisions to further strengthen clarity, tone, and transparency. Each point has been addressed as detailed below.

Comment 1: Length and redundancy

Some sections of the Introduction, Literature Review, and Results contain conceptual repetition.

Response:
We appreciate this observation and have carefully revised the manuscript to address conceptual repetition. The Introduction and Literature Review were manually edited and streamlined to remove overlapping arguments while preserving all theoretical positioning and citations. Redundant explanations were consolidated to improve clarity and flow.

Regarding the Results section, the authors confirm that the narrative was manually reviewed in full to ensure clarity, conciseness, and non-redundancy, and that no conceptual repetition remains. Given that the Results section is already succinct and tightly aligned with the analytical outputs, it was retained in its current form to preserve transparency and readability for readers.

Comment 2: Tone when discussing multidimensional models

At times, the discussion adopts a somewhat strong or dismissive tone toward traditional multidimensional ethical climate frameworks.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important stylistic concern. The Discussion section has been revised to recalibrate tone, ensuring that traditional multidimensional ethical climate models are treated with appropriate scholarly respect. The revised text now explicitly frames the unidimensional findings as a contextual and empirical refinement, rather than a rejection, of established frameworks. This adjustment clarifies that multidimensional models remain theoretically valuable while emphasizing that ethical climate structure may vary across institutional and cultural contexts.

Comment 3: Convergent validity (AVE)

Although the AVE value is acceptable given the high composite reliability, this limitation could be acknowledged more explicitly in the Discussion section to enhance transparency.

Response:
We fully agree with this suggestion. The Discussion section now explicitly acknowledges the AVE value, noting that it falls marginally below conventional thresholds while remaining acceptable given the scale’s strong composite reliability and factor loadings. This clarification enhances methodological transparency and aligns with best practices in psychometric reporting, particularly for broad, institution-level constructs.

Comment 4: Minor language and stylistic polishing

A final proofreading pass would help eliminate minor grammatical issues and further improve flow, particularly in longer explanatory paragraphs.

Response:
We appreciate this recommendation. In addition to internal revisions aimed at improving clarity and coherence, the authors confirm that the final accepted version of the manuscript will undergo MDPI Author Services – Rapid English Language Editing. This professional proofreading service will ensure linguistic precision, stylistic consistency, and optimal readability for an international audience.

We are grateful for the reviewer’s thoughtful and constructive feedback, which has helped us enhance the clarity, tone, and transparency of the manuscript. We believe that the revisions undertaken meaningfully strengthen the paper while preserving its theoretical contribution and empirical rigor. We hope that the revised manuscript meets the journal’s expectations and look forward to your kind consideration.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' review of the article. I believe most of the issues raised have been addressed.

However, the KMO value is still incorrect on line 293 of page 8 in the methodology chapter. I believe this type of information, rather than its accuracy, should not be part of the methodology chapter, as it pertains to the results of data analysis rather than the analysis procedures. The results of the data analyses should be in chapter 4, Results, and this has been addressed. Chapter 3 should only describe the study's methodological options, including data analysis procedures, but not the results of the analyses. I think this is a simple correction that the authors can easily make.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We thank the reviewer for their careful follow-up and for acknowledging that the majority of the issues raised have been addressed.

We fully agree with the reviewer’s observation regarding the placement of the KMO value. In response, Chapter 3 (Methodology) has been revised to ensure that it now describes only the methodological choices and data analysis procedures, without reporting any numerical outcomes of the analyses. Specifically, the numerical KMO value previously reported has been removed from the Methodology chapter and is now reported exclusively in Chapter 4 (Results), where the outcomes of the data analyses are formally presented.

This revision ensures a clear conceptual distinction between analytical procedures and empirical results, in line with standard methodological reporting conventions. We appreciate the reviewer’s guidance on this point, which has helped improve the clarity and structural consistency of the manuscript.