Human Resource Management Practices Perception and Career Success: The Mediating Roles of Employability and Extra-Role Behaviors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate the very interesting subject of the paper and its contents. However, there are a few issues to be addressed:

Materials and Methods

Please provide more information on the research population and sampling method.

There is no need for different subchapter for each scale of the questionnaire. The text look too fragmented in this way.

Results

Please explain how the significance of the indirect effects was determined.

Related to the above: Please check again the significance of the indirect effects trough extra-role behaviors  „(ab = .03 p = .03).” If the indirect effect is not significant, the authors should adapt further comments accordingly.

Author Response

Thank you very much for our research and suggestions for improving the paper.

The answers are contained in the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, this appears as a study that is needed and useful in terms of documenting what we already suspect is the case.  It's intuitive in its results - but again, it is useful to have data to support such intuitive reasoning.

A few items to strengthen the paper.

1. The use of previously developed questionnaires is certainly desired, especially in terms of appropriateness and validity.  However, the authors should make a stronger case for the use of each model.  The choice of each model seems adequate; however, more time is needed to deal with the reasoning for selecting each external questionnaire.  We are left to assume quite a bit and their stronger narrative about why each is the best choice would improve the methodology.
2. In the limitations section, this statement is made: "For this reason and for the relevance of some variables analyzed, such as the HRM practices detectable by some types of workers, the sample was cleaned before carrying out the analyses."  A more detailed, complete description of "cleaning" the sample would be useful.  The point made in the limitations section is certainly important to keep in mind; however, what was done to the sample, especially with the notation of not having to deal with missing values, would give the reader a better understanding of what precisely was done and how such actions may have influenced the results generated.
3. The correlations, while certainly positive and noteworthy of attention, do not exceed .50 in any case.  Thus, more than half of the variation in each is not explained by this study effort.  We don't know if what they did find is the majority of the explanation of the variation or if there is some larger meaning (variables) that they missed because of how they designed the study (including the selection of questionnaires).  A richer discussion exploring the assessment of the correlations found and what those values could represent (and not represent) would also strengthen the discussion and our subsequent understanding of the findings.

Again, this is a useful effort.  With attention to these matters, their manuscript would be improved and make it more suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for our research and suggestions for improving the paper.

The answers are contained in the manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the article meets all the requirements for the authors of the text.

It was constructed in accordance with the guidelines and current standards.

The authors have demonstrated knowledge of the subject and knowledge of the field discussed in the article.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for reading our paper and for expressing appreciation for our research. 

Best regards.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article presents an interesting theme, with an adequate structure, current and relevant bibliography and adequate data analysis.

Strengths: Literature review, sample, data analysis and conclusions

Weaknesses: nothing to indicate

Improvement proposals

3. Materials and Methods – Authors should mention the number of questions asked in the questionnaire, the dates of implementation of the survey and reasons justifying the structuring of the sample, as well as the verification procedures before its online distribution.

Page 10 - “Therefore, this relationship goes beyond the logic of formal recognition in the face of achieving in-role performance objectives but underlines how objective career success could be determined by a set of behaviors…” Authors must demonstrate which and with what aspects.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the appreciation of our research and for the suggestions for improving the paper.

The answers are contained in the manuscript.

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx