Work-Related Flow in Career Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author

Thank you for your nice paper.  Please  add recommendations for future researches and a paragraph explaining the limitations of the research in the conclusion section. Also, the references are too many, please take out the least relevant and old dated references and reduce the number of references to 50 if possible. 

Author Response

My response to Reviewer 1

Thank you for your nice paper. 

Thank you to the reviewer for judging this a nice paper.

Please add recommendations for future researches and a paragraph explaining the limitations of the research in the conclusion section. 

Based on this advice, the additions made are recommendations for future research, strengths, and weaknesses of the study in a new paragraph.

Also, the references are too many, please take out the least relevant and old dated references and reduce the number of references to 50 if possible. 

Thank you for advising the removal of the least relevant and the deletion of old references. The reduction of the references is to 59. This number includes the addition of a new reference. 

Thank you to the reviewer for providing these helpful comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the present article. I opted to review it as it presents a very interesting construct: work flow.

Some comments:

-A chapter should be added after "History" and before work flow's relationship with other similar constructs to provide a clear definition of the construct.

- The definition that is currently provided within the "History" chapter should be more detailed (e.g.it is not clearly stated whether the concept appears only in work settings).

- In the "History" chapter I think that the citations of Csiksentmihalyi's work should not be presented in such detail.

- The introduction to Bakker's work and its relationship to Csiksentmihalyi's work is rather bizzare (at first his name is not mentioned and it is presented at a later sentence "This researcher [...] is Bakker...")

- I believe that having sub-chapters regarding the study in Spanish gifted music performers and in Canadian physics is not necessary.

Editing/ proofreading is needed.

Author Response

My response to Reviewer 2.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the present article. I opted to review it as it presents a very interesting construct: work flow.

Thank you to the reviewer for having an interest in taking the time to review this submission.

Some comments:

-A chapter should be added after "History" and before work flow's relationship with other similar constructs to provide a clear definition of the construct.

Thank you to the reviewer for this advice. A new paragraph has been added to the History section immediately before the Related Concepts section, providing a clear definition of the construct.

- The definition that is currently provided within the "History" chapter should be more detailed (e.g.it is not clearly stated whether the concept appears only in work settings).

Thank you to the reviewer for indicating that the History should be more detailed. The new paragraph provides this additional detail the reviewer has requested.

- In the "History" chapter I think that the citations of Csiksentmihalyi's work should not be presented in such detail.

Based on this suggestion by the reviewer, the additional detail has been removed about the work of Csikszentmihalyi.

- The introduction to Bakker's work and its relationship to Csiksentmihalyi's work is rather bizzare (at first his name is not mentioned and it is presented at a later sentence "This researcher [...] is Bakker...")

Thank you to the reviewer for pointing out the oddity of Bakker's work introduction. The new paragraph in the introduction now provides the initial introduction to Bakker. The original paragraph regarding Bakker has also been improved in referring to his work.

- I believe that having sub-chapters regarding the study in Spanish gifted music performers and in Canadian physics is not necessary.

Thank you for requesting the removal of the sub-chapters regarding the details of the articles. As well as removing the discussion of the two articles mentioned by the reviewer, the examination of the article on Job Crafting and Working Engagement in Proactive Employees has also been removed for a similar reason.

Thank you to the reviewer for taking the time to provide this helpful assessment of this submission. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your response.

My concerns were addressed and I believe that the article has improved significantly.

Proofreading needed.