Exploring Sustainable Human Resource Practices and Framework in Star-Rated Hotels

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Part of the abstract is identical to the text of the Introduction; missing citation. The abstract indicates a different number of respondents than indicated in the part Method. In the article it is necessary to add how the research sample was created, I recommend the exact statistical calculation. Author Contributions is missing at the end of the article. The research does not take into account the current situation of the Covid 19 pandemic. Literary resources should be supplemented by resources from the years 2020-2021.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached letter. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

- In the introduction, the parts that make up the study must be described;
- The literature review should be updated with references to more recent studies.
- A socio-demographic characterization of the interviewees must be included. This is fundamental for consistency to the proposed model.
- Under what conditions were the interviews carried out? How were respondents selected?
- Were the questions asked in the interviews previously validated?

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors refer to the rich spectrum of relevant concepts and propose a framework to improve the quality of Sustainable HRM practices. While the idea seems to be promising, I have some serious concerns which are needed to be addressed before publication.

1. The research problem and its importance are unclear. In the Background/Introduction section, the authors invested a lot of effort into introducing the definition and measurement of certain terms, which are well-established in the extant literature but understated the research problem and why it is so important. The authors are recommended to reframe their storyline and make their introduction clearer and more intriguing. They should explain why they intend to explore the importance of Sustainable HRM practices and how your model produces different outcomes from existing Sustainable HRM models based on prior research. What needs more research attention, and what gaps they want to address in the present research. In particular, they should make more effort to explain their intended research contribution. I would recommend the authors identify the most important aspects as their main contribution, which makes the paper interesting and compelling. 
2. Add potential research contributions to the Background/Introduction. I noticed that potential research contributions were absent from this section and most of the contribution is cited by other authors. Clarifying potential research contributions can help the reviewers to better grasp your idea and put attention to the main points you intended to make.
3. I found replication of sentences in the manuscript; i.e. “Extensive attention has been paid to environmental issues when evaluating the sustainability of organizations” is presented both at the start of abstract and introduction.
4. The discussion should go above and beyond merely summarizing the study’s findings. There should be some discussion of the findings as it relates to the extant body of literature and the theoretical implications of the research (in addition to the practical implications that you note).

Good Luck!

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. need to add supporting data for the introduction
2. The explanation of previous research in the introduction section needs further analysis
3. The approach to the method also needs to be clarified
4. In the discussion aspect, it is necessary to add a description of the data with diagrams, charts, etc

Author Response

Please refer to the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors made the requested changes.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript.

The authors described and incorporated the comments very well.

They modified the paper according to the suggestions and recommendations of the reviewer.

At this stage the paper is suitable for publication.

 

Good Luck!!

Reviewer 4 Report

Your writing has undergone many improvements, good job!