Sustainability in Business Process Management as an Important Strategic Challenge in Human Resource Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Here you can find the plagiarism in the text (in red). You have to rework it in a better way. Otherwise it can't be published. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

All comments of reviewers were incorporated into the paper.  We tried to reduce the percentage of plagiarism but in many cases, it is due to the terminology in the studied issue used in our already published papers. The terms used to describe motivation factors or statistical evaluation of the factors cannot be expressed using another English terms. As it is long-term research into various areas of HRM, the terms used are given in the standardized questionnaire. 

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations to the authors for a well written paper!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for positive review.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction

The introduction should contextualize the topic/situation and clearly state the problem that will be addressed in the paper. In this case, there is a gap between the idea the people are the most important asset in each enterprise and that HRM should create the conditions for them to be productive and the topic of motivation related to job performance. Moreover, why did the authors chose gender, age, and job position as the demographic terms to be analyzed? This connection - the core of the paper - should be more explicit. I even suggest adding the research question/objectives at this stage so the reader knows exactly why the study is important.

 

Literature review

The importance of the motivation for human resources still belongs to the introduction and justifies the study. Here, in the literature review, authors should also include some discussion/information about the issues that motivate people and are the core of the questionnaire used in the survey (Hitka). This discussion justifies and legitimates the factors included in the questionnaire. Additionally, readers would also expect to find here other studies about the same topic (or a similar one). These would help to improve the discussion, too much focused on the presentation and description of the results. How does the present study compare to other studies about the same topic? 

Results

I suggest moving tables 5 and 8 to the appendixes. Moreover, there are too many big tables in the paper making it harder the reading flow.

Discussion

throughout the paper, the authors mentioned more than once that the study took place in Slovakia. I suggest adding a note about the culture of country in order to explain some of the results. Do authors think that the culture of the country had some influence on the results? How does Slovakia compare to other countries?

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

All comments your recommendations were incorporated into the paper.

Introduction was adapted. The importance of the motivation for human resources was moved to the introduction. Please see lines 47-61.

Literature review was extended. Please see lines 79-81.

Table 5 and 8 were moved to the appendix. Please see table A1, A2.

The tables were created in this form intentionally. The tables are important for the manager in terms of clarity comparing all three motivation factors.

Discussion was extended. Please see lines 223-227.

Thank you for the review.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The article includes the requested structure. The paper include a good review of literature in the researched field (78 and actual). The research results are presented in a transparent manner, and the final conclusions do not raise any objections and constitute a correct logical sequence. The analysis of the problem does not raise any objections, and at the same time encourages deeper reflection. The language of the article is correct. The article includes an abstract which include literally the purpose of the paper. The introduction section of the article includes justification for the topic and it can be more comprehensive (only 1 page).

     

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for positive review.

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The second version has much more plagiarism than the first one. I can't  recommend to publish this article. Sorry!!