Are Leaders’ Perceptions of Organizational Politics Worsening Favorable Employee Outcomes? The Role of Ethical Leadership
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper requires a restructuring in accordance with the requirements of the journal, by highlighting established sections, such as: Introduction (which may contain the theoretical aspects addressed) followed by the section of research methods used (which may include the working hypotheses stated) , and at the end a separate section is required for conclusions. Some of the requirements are met, but the authors can review the paper in this regard. The approach of the topic is reflected by the references used, which position the topic in the context desired by the authors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article has more 38% plagiarism. Need to bring it down. Also, latest references need to be added i.e. 2016 onwards.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Referee Report
Main Comments and Suggestions
You should clarify the contributions of the paper which are not elaborated well in the current paper. You can talk about the following contributions: What insights can you provide based on your finding? Do they push forward our understanding? What should we do with your research? Do you have any suggestions to improve the current regulation or practice? Adding the above discussion and extend your literature review may help you make more contributions and position your contributions better.
The paper seems to claim causality but does not discuss the potential endogeneity issue and its remedies sufficiently. See Li 2016, Endogeneity in CEO power: A survey and experiment, Investment Analysts Journal, 45 (3): 149-162 for a summary of methods to deal with the endogeneity problem. No need to use all these methods but at least discuss them in your scenario.
The endogeneity could be arising from certain type of leaders who are related to organizational politics and ethical leadership simultaneously. This makes your finding a spurious correlation, instead of causality.
Related to the above point, you should study and rationalize the use of firm size measures in the literature since frim size is the key variable, especially for Korean companies, in this area and they affect the independent and dependent variables simultaneously. See Dang et al. 2018. Measuring Firm Size in Empirical Corporate Finance. Journal of Banking & Finance, 86:159-176. After all it is the most significant variable in most studies alike. You need to discuss and justify your firm size measure. The results may not be robust to different measures of firm size, which is very common in this area.
Minor Comments and Suggestions
There are many typos and grammatical mistakes throughout the paper, making it hard to read and understand.
For instance, the title has “perceptions” but uses “is”. Plus, what does the title mean? I suggest you to hire a professional editor for a thorough proofread.
Try to avoid long sentences and vague words. Use short, precise, and concise sentences and be more straightforward. The last section of conclusion should summarize all your findings, their implications to researchers and practitioners, future direction for research, limitation of the current study, etc. You need to seriously proofread the paper and extend and update your references.
In conclusion, I would like to thank the authors for a very interesting, unique and potentially important paper. Hope these comments and suggestions can help further their study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I remain of the opinion that this paper deserves a distinct section of conclusions, in order to highlight the topic of the researchers, but I respect the decision of the authors if they want to present the topic in this way.
Or maybe, you can modify the title for the last section: Discussions and conclusions. This way, there is no need to repeat the conclusions, and readers can more easily find the final conclusions of the paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Well done. Congrats!
Author Response
Thank you very much for the time and efforts you have spent in providing us with valuable and constructive comments. We believe we were able to improve the overall quality of our paper substantially. Thank you!
