Structural Dimension Exploration and Measurement Scale Development of Employee Involution in China’s Workplace Field
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
The paper entitled “Structural Dimension Exploration and Measurement Scale Development of Employee Involution” is considered accurately for review. This manuscript is an attempt for discussing about How to make employees treat their work with correct attitude and behavior and improve their work performance has become a realistic proposition. Considering complicated nature of this issue and its direct relations and consequences, this research is suitable for submitted International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health as an original paper. The title and main core of research is interesting and applicable. Readability of paper is proper for a scientific paper and structure of manuscript is well-prepared.
All in all, the paper is acceptable for publishing as original paper after several revisions as follow:
1. For a comprehensive review, in Introduction part authors should mention to researches which proposed systematic evaluation of high risk jobs such as Mining, Blasting, Quarrying etc. for this purpose use following references:
A. Selection of most proper blasting pattern in mines using linear assignment method: Sungun copper mine; M Yari, R Bagherpour, S Jamali, F Asadi; Archives of Mining Sciences 60 (1).
B. Investigating a comprehensive model for evaluating occupational and environmental risks of dimensional stone mining; M Yari, R Bagherpour, M Khoshouei, H Pedram; Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zbornik 35 (1).
C. Blasting operation management using mathematical methods; M Yari, M Monjezi, R Bagherpour, AR Sayadi; Engineering Geology for Society and Territory-Volume 1, 483-493.
D. A novel investigation in blasting operation management using decision making methods; M Yari, M Monjezi, R Bagherpour; Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zbornik 29 (1), 69-79
2. Statistical overview of literature review (by a graph) should be added as a table in Introduction part.
3. The graphical quality of Figures 1 should enhance.
Best Regards
Author Response
1.For a comprehensive review, in Introduction part authors should mention to researches which proposed systematic evaluation of high risk jobs such as Mining, Blasting, Quarrying etc. for this purpose use following references:
A.Selection of most proper blasting pattern in mines using linear assignment method: Sungun copper mine; M Yari, R Bagherpour, S Jamali, F Asadi; Archives of Mining Sciences 60 (1).
B.Investigating a comprehensive model for evaluating occupational and environmental risks of dimensional stone mining; M Yari, R Bagherpour, M Khoshouei, H Pedram; Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zbornik 35 (1).
- Blasting operation management using mathematical methods; M Yari, M Monjezi, R Bagherpour, AR Sayadi; Engineering Geology for Society and Territory-Volume 1, 483-493.
- A novel investigation in blasting operation management using decision making methods; M Yari, M Monjezi, R Bagherpour; Rudarsko-geološko-naftni zbornik 29 (1), 69-79.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the manuscript based on your comments and suggestions. In the introduction, we added the possible impact of involution on high-risk employees, and read and cited relevant references. The changes can be found on page 3, lines 102–108 of the revised manuscript. Our revision makes the article more comprehensive.
2.Statistical overview of literature review (by a graph) should be added as a table in Introduction part.
Response: I'm really sorry. I'm not sure if I understand your opinion correctly. According to your suggestion, we drew the literature review into a table and added it to the appropriate position of the article (page 3, lines 145–146), so that the revised literature review was clearer and more organized.
3.The graphical quality of Figures 1 should enhance.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We revised the graphic to make it look more beautiful (page 10, lines 378–379).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
your paper treats an interesting topic which deals with the wellbeing of workers, not only in the workplace but in their lifes, since overcommitment has repercussions also in the personal sphere.
I really liked the Introduction, it explains properly the concept of involution, also for not specialized scholars. Also even if I'm not quite confident with qualitative analysis, I found the method part very sound and reliable. Lot of information are properly reported and contribute to the overall quality of the paper.
I suggest to double check english style, some sentences are too long and hard to understand, sometimes I found some repetitions that can be avoided.
Also, since this journal is about "health" I suggest to add some insights in <introdutcion regarding the poor mental outcomes that involution can cause.
I think it would be better to end the paper with a brief paragraph of conclusion instead of limitations.
Eventually, in my opinion (but you can disagree of course), the paper is too long. Consider if you can summarize some parts.
Best regards
Author Response
Response:
Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. We have used English experts to improve English editing. At the same time, we cut some content and avoided some repetitive sentences, which improved the quality of writing papers. In addition, we have added some insights into the possible adverse psychological outcomes of involution in the introduction as suggested by you (page 2, lines 70–76 and page 3, lines 102–108 of the revised manuscript). Finally, we changed the limitations at the end of the article into a short conclusion to end the paper (page 17, lines 659–674).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please see the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
1.The keywords need be improved.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. After careful consideration, we changed the original keyword "workplace employees" into "Chinese employees", and "structural dimensions" into "factor analysis".
2.All of the reference should be using English, change all Chinese into English.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have changed all the Chinese in the reference into English.
3.English should be careful checked and thoroughly proof read.
Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have used English experts to improve English editing and improved the quality of writing papers.
4.The gaps of the literature should be discussed.
Response: I'm really sorry. I'm not sure if I understand your opinion correctly. According to your suggestion, we discussed the gap between foreign scholars and current domestic scholars in the study of involution (page 4, lines 162–170 of the revised manuscript ).
5.You mentioned a lot of the involution in China, so maybe the title should be changed. Also, this should be included in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. According to your opinion, we have emphasized the involution of China's workplace in the title and abstract.
6.How to examine a person's involution outcome using the proposed measurement item should be clearly discussed.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment. Therefore, in the article, we added a discussion on how to use the proposed measurement items to examine a person's involution outcome (page 13, lines 483–491 of the revised manuscript).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
Almost all of my mentioned comments are eliminated and not editted/corrected. I turn it back to you for recheck and correct them:
1. For a comprehensive review, in Introduction part authors should mention to researches which proposed systematic evaluation of high risk jobs such as Mining, Blasting, Quarrying etc. for this purpose use following reference:
Selection of most proper blasting pattern in mines using linear assignment method: Sungun copper mine; M Yari, R Bagherpour, S Jamali, F Asadi; Archives of Mining Sciences 60 (1).
2. Statistical overview of literature review (by a graph) should be added as a table in Introduction part.
3. The graphical quality of Figures 1 should enhance.
Best Regards
Author Response
We have made serious modifications according to your suggestions，please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
No more comment as the authors have revised accordingly. The paper is good.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your recognition. It is your valuable suggestions that make our article more perfect.
