Nepotism and Related Threats to Security and Sustainability of the Country: The Case of Lithuanian Organizations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW
Nepotism, Cronyism and other Threats to Security 3 and Sustainability of the Country: the Case of Lithuanian Organizations
Sustainability
The title is misleading. It appears that only nepotism is measured in this study.
Abstract: “etc.” – never use this term, because the reader has no idea what you are referring to. Be specific. This term ‘etc.’ is also used multiple times in the narrative in this manuscript.
“by identifying median links” – not clear what ‘median’ means in the abstract. Is this the mathematical meaning? If so, it must be explained. Another word would be more clear to the reader for purposes of an abstract.
“organization’s psychological climate” – not clear meaning of this term for use in an abstract?
Abstract: “and threat to secure development in mind” – no clear meaning to the reader.
“favouritism can be identified as hazing strong influence mediating variables in the relationship between..” – this is not clear to the reader. Meaning? Words missing?
“unfavourable emotional climate”: - another term of unclear meaning in the abstract.
2-3 – ‘Nepotism’ is discussed at length, but it is not clearly defined. What are its specific elements? It is, of course, only one form of corruption, so its particular emphasis here must be defended (i.e., why is it the most important form of corruption---at least implied here, compared to bribery, embezzlement, extortion, influence peddling, as other forms of corruption)?
4 – Very good explanatory figures of concept.
5-6 – “Nepotism, cronyism, favouritism and other forms of protectionism” – these terms must be clearly defined for purposes of measurement.
6 – “causes tension in communication” and “Negative psychological climate” these terms are taken from the stated hypotheses. Specificity for purposes of measurement is needed.
7 – “A written survey is more dependent on the respondent than on the researcher, because answers to the questions are totally at the discretion of the respondent.” It is not clear what this sentences means.
7-8 – A sample posted online was used to gather data. The sampling method is not clear. Were surveys sent to specific people? If not, how do the authors known whether those responding were representative of the desired workplaces? The explanation in the manuscript is not clear.
9-11 – The questions asked in the survey were very general, e.g., “In my opinion the lowest level managers are afraid of those staff members who have connections with the top level managers.” Difficult to generalize from such global responses? That is to say, what if it is true for some managers, but not others? How does the respondent reply?
11 – “In this study organization functioning (ORGF) was measured by two items: ORG1 “How long have you been working for this organization?”; ORG2 “The age of the employee”. Cronbach’s alpha of 0.819 431 allowed us to establish that the organization functioning scale had high internal consistency [60-63].” – I do not see how these two questions are related to organizational functioning.
pp.11-12 – the model measurement methods is not clear to this reader.
13-16 – Difficult to assess these results without access to the data.
In sum, this manuscript conducted an online survey of 352 workers in Lithuania in public and private sectors. Approximately 28 different variables were measured, plus demographic variables. This splits the samples into very small segments, so it is not clear how the multivariate methods used withstand the sample size. The authors claim validity to their measures of the variables, although the questions provided (not the entire survey) reveal general questions. The findings are intuitive, but the research methods difficult to assess. Issues with questions asked are raised. The title of the paper is misleading. It appears that only nepotism is measured in this study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your opinion and valuable comments. We have revised the article to reflect the requirements. We believe that the corrections made have improved the quality of all of this article and it will help readers to better understand the specifics of the study performed.
All our responses are in the attached file. All additions and corrections to the text are written in green in the article.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I read with great interest the manuscript “Nepotism, Cronyism and other Threats to Security and Sustainability of the Country: the Case of Lithuanian Organizations ” which examines the issue of nepotism with respect its impact on organizations/ efficiency . The manuscript is well organized and adequately prepared. I have only few minor points to raise; these are:
- Presumably, the notions nepotism and cronyism need to be thoroughly defined and distinguished. It is not enough the general description in lines 50-58, although I am fully aware of the site specific, culture-specific particularities.
- It is not a good idea to include web-pages as in text citations (line 318)
- Lines 323-324, what is a small, medium and large size? It is a bit confusing as it is.
- Line 369, What is MANB?
- Lines 371-372: I am not quite sure whether it is accepted to take the average of a Likert scale, see (Jamieson 2004)
- Line 379, What is PONA?
- Table 1 contains test for internal consistency (Cronbach α) and loadings from factor analysis, without explaining the need for such a modelling choice.
Jamieson, S. (2004). "Likert scales: how to (ab)use them." Medical Education 38(12): 1217-1218.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer
Thank you for your opinion and valuable comments. We have revised the article to reflect the requirements. We believe that the corrections made have improved the quality of all of this article and it will help readers to better understand the specifics of the study performed.
All our responses are in the attached file. All additions and corrections to the text are written in green in the article.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author addressed each of the changes recommended in the original manuscript review through either changes in the text, or via explanations. The revsied manuscript is clearer and makes a contribution that more readers will understand and benefit from.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have checked this paper carefully and made some corrections to the manuscript. The non-rigorous statements in the paper have been modified, including clerical errors and grammatical changes. In addition, some new contents were added to make the paper more clearly. The changes were marked in green. We appreciate the Reviewer's warm work earnestly and hope that the corrections will meet with approval.
Best regards
