Work Engagement, Financial Wellness Support and COVID-19 Risk Perceptions in Egypt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First of all, I appreciate the authors for taking an interesting issue, relevant in the Covid situation. I have the following observations :
1. I found that you have made a few strong statements, but they are not backed by appropriate citations. Such as, on page 5, you mentioned, "While significant research has examined COVID’s workplace impact in developed economies, little research has examined this in emerging markets."
2. Theoretical foundations are weak. A strong theoretical base helps in supporting why we thought of checking the relationship between the study variables. Why did you though that COVID would have an impact on work engagement? Why not any other variable, such an commitment, OCB, or employee engagement, etc?
3. You have mentioned "theory on perceived organisational support" (page 3 and 20). Can you please elaborate on this theory, such as who propounded this theory, what does this theory says, etc., with appropriate references?
4. You collected mixed data from junior-level employees to senior-level managers with varying age, and qualification levels. How can you compare such data? Generally, people have different family responsibilities, who all had what kind of responsibilities, what was their family's financial position, etc. also can influence your result. You have not controlled for this, please elaborate on this.
5. Data size is too small to draw any strong inferences.
6. Work engagement is also influenced by factors such as Salary structure, human resource practices, and organizational culture. How did you control that?
7. Please mention EFA/CFA table as well
Fine
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
First of all, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review the paper entitled: "Work engagement, financial wellness support and COVID risk perceptions in Egypt"
I would like to start with the following question regarding this manuscript, and It can be answered inside the manuscript:
1- What is your research and authors contribution?
2- What’s the originality of your work?
3- What’s the conclusion from the following study?
Introduction:
I suggest author to dived Introduction to a brief Introduction and add section 2 Literature review.
Structure the literature review around key themes and highlight areas where further research is needed or where the existing literature falls short.
Or try to add sub-section in the introduction in order to understand terms clearly.
Materials and Methods
The methods used in the manuscript should be revised and cited clearly.
please add sub-sction in the following section and describe in details how the following data collected, when?
More details needed
Results:
I suggest authors to add more detailed results of their research, I believe from yhis study we can analyze different results and it will give to the manuscript a good value.
Discussion:
I can see a brief discussion mixed with conclusion and limitations... in the manuscript and it doesn’t discuss the results clearly,
Begin the discussion section by summarizing the main findings
Discuss how the findings of the study relate to the original research questions or hypotheses. Evaluate whether the results support or contradict the initial expectations.
Conclusion
Future readers would like to see the conclusion of the authors regarding the study, the implication from both theoretical and practical implication, and recommendation of the authors according to the limitation of the study.
I would encourage the author(s) to address these points and further develop the paper.
please follow the journal guidelines.
I hope those suggestions and recommendations are useful to you.
Good luck.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The research represents quite small sampling but has statistical significance. Just few independent variables are selected for researching. The merit of the research is very average in terms of small sampling and not clear activity selection. There are no conclusions and reference list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the authors for improving the literature section and incorporating theoretical foundations.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Based upon reviewer 1's comment below, no additional changes have been made in response to the comment.
Reviewer 2 Report
Despite the improvements made by the authors about the manuscript: "Work engagement, financial wellness support and COVID risk perceptions in Egypt” I still have some minor suggestions:
Minor issues:
For literature review, methods and results, I suggest authors to add sub-section.
Please refer to the following manuscript
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1353/htm
Thank you.
Best regards.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Based upon reviewer 2's recommendations, we have added sub-sections throughout the paper.
The reviewer provided a publication for us to model our revised paper. This was especially helpful as we created these subsections. This way, the paper is easier to for the reader to navigate.
