Next Article in Journal
Are Housing Prices Sustainable in 35 Large and Medium-Sized Chinese Cities? A Study Based on the Cheap Talk Game and Dynamic GMM
Previous Article in Journal
AR Learning Environment Integrated with EIA Inquiry Model: Enhancing Scientific Literacy and Reducing Cognitive Load of Students
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Technological Innovation on Industry 4.0 Implementation and Sustainability: An Empirical Study on Malaysian Small and Medium Sized Enterprises
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Impact of Knowledge Sharing on Sustainable Performance: Mediating Role of Employee’s Ambidexterity

Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12788; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212788
by Alamzeb Aamir 1, Sharif Ullah Jan 1,*, Abdul Qadus 2, Abdelmohsen A. Nassani 3 and Mohamed Haffar 4
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Sustainability 2021, 13(22), 12788; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212788
Submission received: 14 October 2021 / Revised: 12 November 2021 / Accepted: 14 November 2021 / Published: 19 November 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report


Review Comments on Manuscript entitled "Impact of the Knowledge Sharing on the Sustainable Performance: Mediating Role of Employee’s Ambidexterity"(sustainability-1442558):

Please consider the following points during the revision of the manuscript:

1. References appearing in abstracts may be nonstandard.

2. I dont understand that the title of Section 3 and Section 4 are the same "results", if there is a clerical error.

3. There are some non-standardized references, such as [10] no volume and number and pages, [32][59]Letter case,Italics.

4. The topic is interesting and method is appropriate. The conclusion is also enlightening.These details above metioned need to be improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the author for the work done and wish them all the luck in their endeavor. I recommend following all the suggested remarks and addressing them as per the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have coped with  all remarks. Many confusions were cleared. Yet the new additions include some typos. It is recommended to carefully re-read the paper. 

On the otherhand , I didn't clearly see how did you cope with the below remarks:

The answer to point 11 about the first hypothesis is not very clear.

The additional requested tests were not performed (fit indices tests such as RMSEA, SRMR, CFI…)"

Author Response

Please see the attachment (contains the suggestions by Reviewer 2 in round 2).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop