Fostering Organizational Sustainability Through Employee Collaboration: An Integrative Approach to Environmental, Social, and Economic Dimensions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript endeavors to make a significant academic contribution by examining the potential of employee collaboration as a vehicle for achieving organizational sustainability. However, despite its intentions, the manuscript falls short in several critical areas that undermine its effectiveness as a scholarly work.

Firstly, while the manuscript compiles a variety of related concepts into several tables, it lacks a coherent and logical framework that would support how and why certain concepts may facilitate others. This absence of a clear narrative is a fundamental flaw, as a review article should not resemble a mere collection of notes taken by a researcher. It seems the authors have conducted a literature review by gathering existing studies and jotting down the concepts they encountered. However, the manuscript reflects these efforts in a manner that suggests activity without substance, failing to articulate the rationale behind the progression from one concept to another. Without explicitly revealing the logical connections, it is challenging for others to understand the authors’ thought process, leaving the reader with more questions than answers.

Additionally, the manuscript presents numerous concepts that, while potentially interconnected, are displayed in tables without any logical progression between them. This lack of narrative coherence is a significant oversight for a review paper that seeks publication in an academic journal. Such a paper should offer more than a mere aggregation of seemingly related concepts; it should provide theoretically grounded insights into why certain concepts may influence others. Unfortunately, this intellectual rigor is absent in the current manuscript, which significantly diminishes its value as a review paper intended for an academic readership.

Moreover, the authors claim to have conducted a content analysis, yet there is no evidence of such an analysis in the manuscript. This raises serious questions about the authors’ understanding of the methodology and their ability to apply it effectively. A genuine content analysis requires a systematic approach to coding and interpreting qualitative data, which is not evident in the manuscript. Instead, the authors have merely listed some concepts, reflecting a superficial level of literature review that does not meet the standards of academic rigor expected in a scholarly publication.

Furthermore, the manuscript lacks critical engagement with existing literature. A review paper should not only summarize existing research but also critically evaluate and synthesize the findings to offer new insights and perspectives. This manuscript, however, fails to engage critically with the literature, offering little more than a basic summary of existing concepts without any deeper analysis or interpretation. This lack of critical engagement undermines the manuscript’s contribution to the field and its potential to advance academic discourse.

In addition, the manuscript does not adequately address the practical implications of its findings. A review paper should not only contribute to theoretical knowledge but also offer insights that can inform practice and policy. The absence of a discussion on the practical implications of employee collaboration for organizational sustainability is a significant omission that further weakens the manuscript’s impact.

Overall, while the manuscript presents an interesting topic, it falls short in its development. The lack of a coherent narrative, critical engagement with the literature, and practical implications, combined with the absence of a genuine content analysis, render the manuscript unsuitable for publication in its current form. Without substantial revisions to address these issues, I cannot recommend this manuscript for publication in an academic journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research, but the English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Firstly, while the manuscript compiles a variety of related concepts into several tables, it lacks a coherent and logical framework that would support how and why certain concepts may facilitate others. This absence of a clear narrative is a fundamental flaw, as a review article should not resemble a mere collection of notes taken by a researcher. It seems the authors have conducted a literature review by gathering existing studies and jotting down the concepts they encountered. However, the manuscript reflects these efforts in a manner that suggests activity without substance, failing to articulate the rationale behind the progression from one concept to another. Without explicitly revealing the logical connections, it is challenging for others to understand the authors’ thought process, leaving the reader with more questions than answers.	Thank you for your constructive feedback. We appreciate your observation regarding the need for a more coherent and logical framework. In response, we have revised the manuscript to better articulate the connections between the concepts presented and provide a clearer narrative that explains how and why certain concepts facilitate others. These revisions aim to establish a logical progression and enhance the article's readability and impact.
Additionally, the manuscript presents numerous concepts that, while potentially interconnected, are displayed in tables without any logical progression between them. This lack of narrative coherence is a significant oversight for a review paper that seeks publication in an academic journal. Such a paper should offer more than a mere aggregation of seemingly related concepts; it should provide theoretically grounded insights into why certain concepts may influence others. Unfortunately, this intellectual rigor is absent in the current manuscript, which significantly diminishes its value as a review paper intended for an academic readership.	Thank you for your valuable feedback. We recognize the importance of presenting concepts in a coherent narrative that reflects their interconnections and theoretical grounding. In response, we have revised the manuscript to establish logical progressions between the concepts presented in the tables and to offer insights into their interrelationships. These revisions ensure the article provides the intellectual rigor expected of a review paper, enhancing its value for an academic readership.
Moreover, the authors claim to have conducted a content analysis, yet there is no evidence of such an analysis in the manuscript. This raises serious questions about the authors’ understanding of the methodology and their ability to apply it effectively. A genuine content analysis requires a systematic approach to coding and interpreting qualitative data, which is not evident in the manuscript. Instead, the authors have merely listed some concepts, reflecting a superficial level of literature review that does not meet the standards of academic rigor expected in a scholarly publication.	Thank you for your insightful comment. We recognize the importance of demonstrating a systematic approach to content analysis within the manuscript. In response, we have revised the methodology section to explicitly describe the steps taken during the content analysis process, including coding, categorization, and interpretation. These revisions clarify the application of the methodology and address concerns about the rigor and validity of our approach.
Furthermore, the manuscript lacks critical engagement with existing literature. A review paper should not only summarize existing research but also critically evaluate and synthesize the findings to offer new insights and perspectives. This manuscript, however, fails to engage critically with the literature, offering little more than a basic summary of existing concepts without any deeper analysis or interpretation. This lack of critical engagement undermines the manuscript’s contribution to the field and its potential to advance academic discourse.	We have revised the manuscript to go beyond summarizing existing concepts by critically evaluating and synthesizing key findings. The updated sections highlight gaps in the literature, offer deeper analysis, and propose new insights, thereby enhancing the manuscript's contribution to academic discourse.
In addition, the manuscript does not adequately address the practical implications of its findings. A review paper should not only contribute to theoretical knowledge but also offer insights that can inform practice and policy. The absence of a discussion on the practical implications of employee collaboration for organizational sustainability is a significant omission that further weakens the manuscript’s impact.	The article has been revised according to the provided recommendation. We have added practical insights based on the study's findings to enhance the article's relevance to practice and policy development. These revisions strengthen the practical impact of the article and ensure that it meets the standards expected of academic publications.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The idea of ​​the article is interesting. The study is devoted to the current problem of ensuring the sustainable functioning of the organization.

The research delineates essential factors and impediments to effective collaboration and examines their influence on sustainability outcomes.

However, it is necessary to formulate the goals and objectives of the study more clearly. The structure of the work is not clear enough. The novelty of the results is not highlighted.

The literature review is impressive, but the excessive number of references without specifying the specifics and features of the study complicates the perception of the work.

It would be advisable to provide quantitative indicators of increased sustainability due to the use of the proposed approach.

Please check the text, some sentences raise questions (lines 152, 153, 184-186, 522). Check the numbering of the tables (page 7 presents a table without a number and without a description).

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback. Please, find below our answers to your comments:

However, it is necessary to formulate the goals and objectives of the study more clearly. The structure of the work is not clear enough. The novelty of the results is not highlighted.	We‘ve corrected
The literature review is impressive, but the excessive number of references without specifying the specifics and features of the study complicates the perception of the work.	We did it
It would be advisable to provide quantitative indicators of increased sustainability due to the use of the proposed approach.	We did it
Please check the text, some sentences raise questions (lines 152, 153, 184-186, 522). Check the numbering of the tables (page 7 presents a table without a number and without a description).	We‘ve corrected

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-written paper which makes excellent use of a macro-analytic technique of the literature on which to build the remainder of its methodology. English language is good with some clarity required as noted below:

1.  The methodology section does not contain any references at all to support the strategies and tools used. This includes the use of 'mixed-methods framework', 'benchmarking' and 'content analysis', but there are many more. These are well-known and used techniques, but must be referenced and explained on their first usage., as if to a smart novice to qualitative research.

2.  Line 184/5, 'For entries, this part should provide details about the area the subject applies to or 184 what kind of problems it can solve.' - this sentence is not clear and needs refining.

3.  The article does draw on a large number of references, which is excellent. I am surprised, therefore, that the review doesn't take in the use of 'social capital' and its differing bonding, bridging and linking networks. Social capital provides an analytic framework as well as being compatible for the topic. The review is comprehensive, so to omit such a relevant and useful body of work seems odd. I suggest strongly that the authors do reference this body of work, even though they may well explain why the do not choose to use it in their analyses. It would certainly add to the potential readership and use of the article once published. It does not require a huge amount of work to include it. Some key original researchers for social capital are Robert Putnam and Michael Woolcock if the authors need a starting point. 

4.  The Conclusion is good, but for the readers' benefit, I suggest the addition of a set of succinct points (bullets or numbers) to really pull out and focus on the key points.

Otherwise, this paper will be a strong contribution to organisational behaviour/management and behaviour change, perhaps education as well

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback and such a positive evaluation of the article. Please, find below our answers to your comments:

1.  The methodology section does not contain any references at all to support the strategies and tools used. This includes the use of 'mixed-methods framework', 'benchmarking' and 'content analysis', but there are many more. These are well-known and used techniques, but must be referenced and explained on their first usage., as if to a smart novice to qualitative research.	We did it
2. Line 184/5, 'For entries, this part should provide details about the area the subject applies to or 184 what kind of problems it can solve.' - this sentence is not clear and needs refining.	We did it
3.  The article does draw on a large number of references, which is excellent. I am surprised, therefore, that the review doesn't take in the use of 'social capital' and its differing bonding, bridging and linking networks. Social capital provides an analytic framework as well as being compatible for the topic. The review is comprehensive, so to omit such a relevant and useful body of work seems odd. I suggest strongly that the authors do reference this body of work, even though they may well explain why the do not choose to use it in their analyses. It would certainly add to the potential readership and use of the article once published. It does not require a huge amount of work to include it. Some key original researchers for social capital are Robert Putnam and Michael Woolcock if the authors need a starting point.	We did it
4. The Conclusion is good, but for the readers' benefit, I suggest the addition of a set of succinct points (bullets or numbers) to really pull out and focus on the key points.	We did it

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research, biut the English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions for improving the work have been taken into account. Comments have been corrected.