Mapping the Evidence on Decent Work (2022–2025): An Evidence Gap Map of Recent Empirical Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Bibliometric article. The author(s) analyze a collection of 214 scientific articles selected from two major databases and attempt to identify research gaps in the topic of decent work. The study was conducted correctly, and the conclusions drawn from the study indicate further research directions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, many thanks for your comments and recommendations. We have revised the manuscript. Our point by point responses are in the attached pdf file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Autors,

This manuscript examines recent empirical research on the concept of decent work and proposes an Evidence Gap Map (EGM) covering studies published between 2022 and 2025. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly given the increasing scholarly attention to the decent work agenda in both organizational research and policy discussions. The manuscript is clearly structured, and the attempt to organize the recent literature through a multi-domain evidence mapping approach represents a potentially valuable contribution to the field.

The paper is promising and addresses an important research area. The analytical framework adopted by the authors could provide a useful overview of emerging empirical trends and research gaps, and the discussion section demonstrates awareness of both theoretical and policy implications. With further refinement, the manuscript may become a useful reference point for scholars interested in the development of empirical research on decent work.

At the same time, several aspects of the manuscript would benefit from clarification and strengthening in order to ensure methodological transparency, internal consistency, and full alignment between the scope of the review and the claims made in the manuscript.

A first point concerns the description of the study selection process. The manuscript indicates that the review followed a two-stage screening procedure in which titles and abstracts were first examined in order to exclude records clearly outside the scope of the review, followed by full-text assessment. However, the PRISMA diagram reports that no records were excluded at the title and abstract screening stage and indicates that all 529 unique records progressed directly to full-text retrieval and assessment. This creates some uncertainty regarding how the screening procedure was actually implemented. Clarifying this point and ensuring full alignment between the methodological description and the PRISMA diagram would strengthen the transparency of the review process.

A second aspect that could be improved relates to the reproducibility of the search strategy. The manuscript briefly reports the search expressions used in Web of Science and Scopus, but the information currently provided may not allow full replication of the search process. For systematic reviews and evidence mapping studies, it is generally advisable to report the full search syntax used in each database, including the fields searched, the exact expressions entered, the date of the search, and any filters applied. Providing this information either within the manuscript or in supplementary material would significantly enhance the methodological transparency of the study.

The scope and positioning of the review could also be clarified. The inclusion criteria restrict the corpus to English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles using survey-based quantitative designs and relying on primary individual-level data that explicitly refer to the concept of decent work. These criteria are understandable for a focused mapping exercise; however, they necessarily narrow the coverage of the literature. In some parts of the manuscript the results are framed as representing a comprehensive overview of the empirical evidence on decent work. It may therefore be helpful for the authors to slightly recalibrate this framing so that the scope of the conclusions remains fully aligned with the specific segment of the literature included in the analysis.

Further clarification would also be beneficial regarding the coding framework used to classify the included studies. The methodological section describes several domains used in the coding process; however, some categories appearing in the summary results tables do not seem to be explicitly defined in the earlier methodological description. A clearer and more complete presentation of the coding scheme, either in the methods section or in supplementary material, would help readers better understand how studies were classified and would improve the reproducibility of the analysis.

The summary table presenting the distribution of research gaps could also benefit from careful verification. The manuscript defines percentage thresholds used to classify different levels of research gaps, yet some of the values reported in the table appear to fall outside the ranges associated with the corresponding categories. Revisiting the thresholds and ensuring that the classification logic is applied consistently throughout the table would help avoid potential confusion.

Another point that could be clarified concerns the coding procedure itself. The manuscript indicates that coding was conducted primarily based on study abstracts, with full texts consulted when necessary. While this approach may be appropriate in large-scale mapping exercises, additional detail on how decisions were made when abstracts provided limited information, as well as further explanation of the reliability procedures applied during coding, would strengthen the methodological robustness of the study.

The references to supplementary materials could also be reviewed for consistency. Different sections of the manuscript appear to attribute slightly different contents to the same supplementary tables. Ensuring that these materials are clearly described and consistently referenced throughout the manuscript would improve the overall clarity of the reporting.

Finally, a careful editorial revision would further strengthen the presentation of the paper. A small number of sentences would benefit from grammatical refinement, and it may be useful to verify the accuracy and consistency of certain bibliographic references.

In summary, the manuscript addresses a relevant and growing research topic and proposes a potentially useful analytical framework. With revisions aimed at clarifying the methodological procedures, improving transparency in the search and coding processes, and ensuring internal consistency in the reporting of results, the paper could make a meaningful contribution to the literature on decent work.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally written in clear and understandable English, and the overall argument is easy to follow. However, several sentences would benefit from minor linguistic refinement to improve grammatical accuracy, clarity, and stylistic consistency. In particular, some formulations could be revised to ensure smoother academic phrasing and greater precision in the presentation of the results and methodological procedures. A careful language revision or light proofreading would help enhance the overall readability and professional presentation of the manuscript.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, many thanks for your comments and recommendations. We have revised the manuscript. Our point by point responses are in the attached pdf file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My main concerns relate to methodological framing and reporting clarity. The search strategy is very restrictive, relying on only two databases and on the exact term “decent work” in title/abstract fields, while also excluding non-English studies, qualitative work, mixed methods, grey literature, and non-survey quantitative designs. This is acceptable if the authors explicitly position the manuscript as a focused map of recent psychological survey-based research, but it is too narrow to support broader claims about the decent work literature as a whole. The reporting of study selection also needs clarification. The manuscript states that Stage 1 title/abstract screening excluded clearly irrelevant records, but later indicates that all 529 unique records underwent full-text evaluation and methodological classification. This should be reconciled in the text and PRISMA flow.

I would also encourage the authors to strengthen the methods section by reporting a more explicit interrater reliability indicator, rather than only stating that 20% of studies were double-coded and disagreements were resolved by consensus. In the discussion and conclusion, the paper should more clearly distinguish between what the mapped evidence directly shows and what is being inferred at a broader policy level.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is generally understandable, but the paper would benefit from careful language editing to correct awkward phrasing, minor grammatical issues, and a few internal inconsistencies in wording and presentation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, many thanks for your comments and recommendations. We have revised the manuscript. Our point by point responses are in the attached pdf file. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors!

As a researcher, who also continuously focuses on decent work, I was hugely interested to read and evaluate your paper. I can say, I found it truly interesting, gap-filling and very much needed.

The manuscript reviewed presents an evidence gap map  of recent empirical research on decent work published between 2022 and 2025. I think the reasoning of choosing this timeframe is great, clear and supported. Overall, the article constitutes a timely and valuable contribution to the literature on decent work. 

The manuscript is well-structured, methodologically sound, and clearly written. The use of an evidence gap map is particularly appropriate for synthesizing a rapidly expanding body of literature and for identifying structural imbalances in the research landscape. The findings are relevant, and its result can give great ideas for future empirical researches. Overall, the paper provides a useful overview of current empirical research trends and highlights several important research gaps that deserve further scholarly attention.

The manuscript demonstrates a high level of originality. To the best of my knowledge, this is indeed one of the first studies to apply the evidence gap map methodology specifically to the recent empirical literature on decent work. By focusing on the post-2021 period, the study captures developments following the growing international attention to decent work within policy frameworks and academic discourse.

The methodological approach is appropriate and carefully implemented. The use of matrixes are necessary and nicely showing the most important gaps. Thus the visualizations are an effective way to present complex patterns in the literature. The methodological transparency is a particular strength of the manuscript. 

On the style, the manuscript is clearly written and logically organized. The research objectives are well-defined, and I specifically liked the usage of research questions (RQ1, RQ2, etc.) However, because the RQ-s are clearly defined, it would be important to have a coherent structure, and to highlight, which results give answers exactly to which RQ. I would this way recommend to include short crossreferences to the RQ-s by mentioning them by the exact results. 

The manuscript appears to engage appropriately with the relevant literature. The focus on recent empirical studies is justified given the objective of mapping the current research landscape. The references are generally appropriate and up to date.

Minor Suggestions for Improvement

While the manuscript is already strong, the above recommended minor improvement could further enhance its clarity and impact: Please, consider highlighting the connected RQx, when defining the exact results.

Overall, this manuscript represents a solid and well-executed study that provides a valuable overview of the current empirical landscape of decent work research. The methodological approach is appropriate, the findings are mostly clearly presented, however with the minor corrections this can be evolved.

Author Response

Reviewer 4.

Dear Authors!

As a researcher, who also continuously focuses on decent work, I was hugely interested to read and evaluate your paper. I can say, I found it truly interesting, gap-filling and very much needed.

The manuscript reviewed presents an evidence gap map of recent empirical research on decent work published between 2022 and 2025. I think the reasoning of choosing this timeframe is great, clear and supported. Overall, the article constitutes a timely and valuable contribution to the literature on decent work.

The manuscript is well-structured, methodologically sound, and clearly written. The use of an evidence gap map is particularly appropriate for synthesizing a rapidly expanding body of literature and for identifying structural imbalances in the research landscape. The findings are relevant, and its result can give great ideas for future empirical researches. Overall, the paper provides a useful overview of current empirical research trends and highlights several important research gaps that deserve further scholarly attention.

The manuscript demonstrates a high level of originality. To the best of my knowledge, this is indeed one of the first studies to apply the evidence gap map methodology specifically to the recent empirical literature on decent work. By focusing on the post-2021 period, the study captures developments following the growing international attention to decent work within policy frameworks and academic discourse.

The methodological approach is appropriate and carefully implemented. The use of matrixes are necessary and nicely showing the most important gaps. Thus the visualizations are an effective way to present complex patterns in the literature. The methodological transparency is a particular strength of the manuscript.

On the style, the manuscript is clearly written and logically organized. The research objectives are well-defined, and I specifically liked the usage of research questions (RQ1, RQ2, etc.) However, because the RQ-s are clearly defined, it would be important to have a coherent structure, and to highlight, which results give answers exactly to which RQ. I would this way recommend to include short crossreferences to the RQ-s by mentioning them by the exact results.

The manuscript appears to engage appropriately with the relevant literature. The focus on recent empirical studies is justified given the objective of mapping the current research landscape. The references are generally appropriate and up to date.

Authors’ response:

Response:

Thank you very much for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your encouraging and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your positive evaluation of the study’s contribution, originality, and methodological approach.

We also thank you for your helpful suggestion regarding the alignment between research questions and results. This point has been addressed as detailed below.

Minor Suggestions for Improvement

While the manuscript is already strong, the above recommended minor improvement could further enhance its clarity and impact: Please, consider highlighting the connected RQx, when defining the exact results.

Overall, this manuscript represents a solid and well-executed study that provides a valuable overview of the current empirical landscape of decent work research. The methodological approach is appropriate, the findings are mostly clearly presented, however with the minor corrections this can be evolved.

Authors’ response:

Response:

Thank you very much for this helpful suggestion. We agree that making the links between the research questions and the reported findings more explicit improves the clarity and interpretability of the results.

In response, we have revised the Results section to more clearly connect each set of findings to the corresponding research question (RQ1–RQ5). Specifically, we have incorporated explicit references to the relevant research questions at the beginning of each subsection and in key interpretative passages, ensuring a consistent and transparent alignment between the analytical structure and the study objectives.

We appreciate this suggestion, which has helped us further improve the clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The revised manuscript shows clear and substantial improvement in response to the reviewers’ comments. The authors have made a commendable effort to clarify the methodological procedures, particularly with regard to the search strategy, study selection process, and coding framework. These revisions have strengthened the transparency, coherence, and overall readability of the manuscript, and the study now provides a more robust and structured overview of recent empirical research on decent work.

The inclusion of a more detailed search strategy and the alignment between the methodological description and the PRISMA flow diagram significantly enhance the reproducibility of the study. In addition, the clarification of the coding categories and the correction of inconsistencies in the classification of research gaps contribute positively to the internal consistency of the analysis. The manuscript is now well organized and presents its findings in a clear and accessible manner.

There are, however, a few minor aspects that could still be refined to further strengthen the manuscript. In particular, the scope of the review is now clearly defined and appropriately narrowed to survey-based empirical studies explicitly addressing decent work. While this focus strengthens the internal consistency of the analysis, it may be helpful to ensure that the framing of the conclusions remains fully aligned with this specific segment of the literature. A slight adjustment in the wording of some interpretative statements would further reinforce this alignment.

Additionally, while the description of the coding procedure has been improved, a brief clarification reinforcing how consistency in coding decisions was ensured may further enhance methodological transparency, even if the current level of detail is already acceptable for this type of evidence mapping study. 

Overall, the manuscript is now in a strong position and, following these minor refinements, it should be suitable for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Dear Authors,

The revised manuscript shows clear and substantial improvement in response to the reviewers’ comments. The authors have made a commendable effort to clarify the methodological procedures, particularly with regard to the search strategy, study selection process, and coding framework. These revisions have strengthened the transparency, coherence, and overall readability of the manuscript, and the study now provides a more robust and structured overview of recent empirical research on decent work.

The inclusion of a more detailed search strategy and the alignment between the methodological description and the PRISMA flow diagram significantly enhance the reproducibility of the study. In addition, the clarification of the coding categories and the correction of inconsistencies in the classification of research gaps contribute positively to the internal consistency of the analysis. The manuscript is now well organized and presents its findings in a clear and accessible manner.

There are, however, a few minor aspects that could still be refined to further strengthen the manuscript. In particular, the scope of the review is now clearly defined and appropriately narrowed to survey-based empirical studies explicitly addressing decent work. While this focus strengthens the internal consistency of the analysis, it may be helpful to ensure that the framing of the conclusions remains fully aligned with this specific segment of the literature. A slight adjustment in the wording of some interpretative statements would further reinforce this alignment.

Additionally, while the description of the coding procedure has been improved, a brief clarification reinforcing how consistency in coding decisions was ensured may further enhance methodological transparency, even if the current level of detail is already acceptable for this type of evidence mapping study. 

Overall, the manuscript is now in a strong position and, following these minor refinements, it should be suitable for publication.

Authors’ responses

Thank you very much for your careful reading of the revised manuscript and for your positive and constructive feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the improvements made in response to the previous round of comments.

In response to your suggestions, we have implemented two minor refinements. First, we have carefully reviewed and adjusted the wording of the Conclusion section to ensure that all interpretative statements remain fully aligned with the specific scope of the review, namely survey-based empirical studies on decent work. Second, we have added a brief clarification in the Data Extraction and Coding section to further explain how consistency in coding decisions was ensured throughout the process.

We are grateful for your helpful suggestions, which have contributed to further improving the clarity and precision of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the authors acknowledge that this was done to preserve conceptual precision, the paper would benefit from a more explicit discussion of how this choice may have excluded closely related research streams using adjacent terms such as job quality, precarious work, fair work, or employment quality. This limitation is important because it directly affects the interpretability of the identified “gaps.”

The methodological transparency could be improved further: the absence of a formal inter-rater reliability coefficient weakens the methodological robustness of the coding procedure. I encourage the authors either to report an appropriate reliability statistic, if available, or to justify more explicitly why it was not calculated and how consistency was ensured in practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is understandable and generally adequate, but the manuscript would benefit from language polishing: some sentences are overly long, and a few formulations could be made more concise and direct.

A thorough proofreading would improve readability and overall presentation.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

While the authors acknowledge that this was done to preserve conceptual precision, the paper would benefit from a more explicit discussion of how this choice may have excluded closely related research streams using adjacent terms such as job quality, precarious work, fair work, or employment quality. This limitation is important because it directly affects the interpretability of the identified “gaps.”

The methodological transparency could be improved further: the absence of a formal inter-rater reliability coefficient weakens the methodological robustness of the coding procedure. I encourage the authors either to report an appropriate reliability statistic, if available, or to justify more explicitly why it was not calculated and how consistency was ensured in practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English is understandable and generally adequate, but the manuscript would benefit from language polishing: some sentences are overly long, and a few formulations could be made more concise and direct.

A thorough proofreading would improve readability and overall presentation.

Authors’ response:

Thank you very much for your careful reading of the manuscript and for your constructive and helpful suggestions.

First, regarding the scope of the search strategy, we have expanded the Limitations section to more explicitly acknowledge that focusing on studies using the term “decent work” may have excluded closely related research streams employing adjacent concepts such as job quality, precarious work, fair work, or employment quality. We now also clarify that this limitation has implications for the interpretation of the identified evidence gaps, as some areas appearing underexplored may in fact be more extensively studied under different conceptual frameworks.

Second, with respect to inter-rater reliability, we have further refined the description of the coding procedure in the Data Extraction and Coding section. Specifically, we now provide a clearer justification for not reporting a formal reliability coefficient and explain how consistency was ensured in practice through systematic application of the coding framework, independent double-coding of a subsample, and consensus-based resolution of discrepancies. This clarification strengthens the transparency of the methodological approach while remaining consistent with established practices in evidence mapping studies.

Finally, the manuscript has been carefully proofread to improve clarity, conciseness, and overall readability. Minor revisions have been made to streamline sentence structure and enhance the precision of the language.

We appreciate these suggestions, which have helped us further improve the clarity and methodological transparency of the manuscript.