Measurement Scale Development and Validation of Female Employees’ Career Expectations in Mainland China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study. It presented a comprehensive structure of the female employee’s career expectation in Mainland of China. There are some minor issues which I believe the author(s) can improve the overall quality of this manuscript.

1.      In page 3, author(s) mentioned there are

a.      some scholars: who? With proper reference.

b.       in foreign countries: where?

c.      Overall citation/reference: should carefully check the correct format and style.

2.      Theoretical contribution and managerial contribution should be emphasized in the conclusions section.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. My response to the comments have uploaded as a Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Your article is interesting. 

Please find my recommendations in attachment . 

I hope these recommendations will help you increase the quality of your article.

Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. My response to the comments have uploaded as a Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this interesting article. It addresses an important topic and investigates a research gap clearly identified. The authors uses appropriate research methods for addressing the topic. 

I consider the article as publishable after minor issues would be addressed.

The final part should be enhanced and attention should be payed to the practical implications of the findings. The topic is one of considerable practical interest and managerial and even policy recommendations should be included.

Providing limitations and implicitly directions for further investigations would be a plus for the article.

Minor typos and formatting errors should be corrected.

Good luck with the review!

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. My response to the comments have uploaded as a Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Some observations about the article entitled ,,Measurement Scale Development and Validation of the Female Employees’ Career Expectation in Mainland of China,,:

 

I think that the affirmation ,,The sustainable development of human resources, on the one hand, refers to the increase in the number of human resources than the previous, is an extension of development'' must be explained or the authors must refer to the source (rows 22-23).

 

The authors mention that ,,Studies have confirmed that career expectation is an important factor affecting employee turnover rate'' but they cite one author - Pearson. Which are other studies? (rows 42-43).

 

Row 47: the name of the study?

 

Rows 47-55: This is a point of view. It exists studies that confirm that the role and women motivation is changing. The women are more powerful and their position at work is not such vulnerable like in the past.

 

This conclusions/affirmations are based on a thin theoretical literature base. It is indicated to make a comparative theoretical analysis.

 

Row 64: the source?

 

The Introduction is a general presentation of topic, but narrowed to the asian case without mentioning this. If the authors are referring to a broad aspect of topic, they will have to study other sources. Anyway, they have to appeal to many other researches because the theoretical support is not strong. The role and position of women is changing and it is more and more important, and this is demonstrated in many research works. It is also important to mention that in the Introduction the authors must mention the relation subject-sustainability, they must present the structure of the article and the main results. The Introduction is poorly documented and incomplete.

 

Rows 91-95: from the author's point of view?

Rows 97-107: On what considerations the authors are making such affirmations? Those affirmations are too general and they have to be sustained by other research findings

 

The methodology is not very strong.

 

,,The Discussions'' and ,,The Conclusions’’ are not profound.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. My response to the comments have uploaded as a Word file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for your answer. Unfortunately, the answers are not satisfactory. The article is interesting but can be improved. I think your research does not match the journal's theme: sustainability. Explanation of sampling is not clear. 7 hotels x 30 questionnaires = 210 questionnaires. In your article, on page 10, line 306, the sample is 219 questionnaires. It's confusing.

All explanations must be clear! Readers must learn some research methods from your article.

In conclusion, I believe that we need to improve the quality of research results with clear explanations.

Good luck!

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Please see the attachment for the reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have made a few changes to the article. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. Please see the attachment for the reply.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Thanks a lot for your answer!

Good luck!

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.