Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Employee Performance in the Construction Industry of Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Atuthors

I appreciate your efforts, however, the introduction is weak in terms of support of the latest scholarly sources, as of now it seems to be a very weak study without strong justification for conducting the study. I therefore recommend you to study and use the following scholarly works

Ullah, Z., Sulaiman, M. A. B. A., Ali, S. B., Ahmad, N., Scholz, M., & Han, H. (2021). The effect of work safety on organizational social sustainability improvement in the healthcare sector: the case of a public sector hospital in Pakistan. International journal of environmental research and public health, 18(12), 6672.

Asif, M. U., Asad, M., Bhutta, N. A., & Khan, S. N. (2021, November). Leadership behavior and sustainable leadership among higher education institutions of Pakistan. In 2021 Sustainable Leadership and Academic Excellence International Conference (SLAE) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Asad, M., Kashif, M., Sheikh, U. A., Asif, M. U., George, S., & Khan, G. U. H. (2022). Synergetic effect of safety culture and safety climate on safety performance in SMEs: does transformation leadership have a moderating role?. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics, 28(3), 1858-1864.

Secondly, I believe that if you read and add the abovementioned scholarly works it can made your study worthy as the findings of the author are very supportive in developing justifications for your arguments;

Methodology is good but please provide some explanation about the use of the statistical analysis that you have applied and support the same with scholarly sources where the similar methodologies have been applied by the previous researchers.
Likewise for Analysis link your findings with literature to show the significance and use of your study.

fur discussion and conclusions please expand it a bit as its important to mention the limitations faced by the researchers as well as the theoretical implications of the study.

Author Response

Dear Sir
Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We did our best to address each of the suggestion at best. We hope that the revised version will meet your expectations. Please find the seperate sheet of response against each suggestion. 
thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

1. I suggest that the title of the manuscript be revised. The title is too short and should be mentioned the industry to which the subject belongs.

2. The introduction should add a paragraph to introduce the research gaps of previous research, highlight the innovation of this manuscript, and present the research objectives one by one.

3. The last paragraph should be added to the introduction to introduce the contents of the following chapters.

4. The content of the literature reviews should be deleted to make its point of view more precise and concise. I suggest that half of it be deleted because it is unnecessary.

 

5. Discussion- This part needs to be rewritten. The content of the discussion section should be: The argumentation of the present results vs. other similar studies is expected in the discussion section. Also, discuss the potential reasons for having to find these results.

Author Response

Dear Sir
Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We did our best to address each of the suggestion at best. We hope that the revised version will meet your expectations. Please find the seperate sheet of response against each suggestion. 
thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The style and clarity of presentation contain inaccuracies:

- The phrase “If the company's objectives are met, the organization has won the competition indirectly as well” (lines 57–58) both per se and in the light of the context preceding it.

- Authors are encouraged to diversify the writing style of the introduction section, for example, the phrase “job satisfaction” occurs 14 times in the last two paragraphs.

- “This compelled me to investigate the relationship between job…” (line 99) – did only one author work on the study?

- Paragraphs are too long, which makes them difficult for the reader to understand.

- Header of table 2 contains a wrong designation.

- Some issues that are obvious to the average reader should be left out, such as the difference between quantitative and qualitative research.

“In Pakistan, very few researchers have focused on the relationship between job satisfaction and employee performance. This compelled me to investigate…” – is the small number of Pakistani researchers on the issue the only reason to discuss the topic? If yes, then the article is hardly relevant.

Criteria for systematization of the analyzed literature are not well developed.

The authors show Tables 1 and 2, but they look somewhat limited. We often see in research the facts that, in addition to the variables listed in that tables, job performance and/or satisfaction is affected by opportunities of obtaining and applying new skills, connection of the employee with the final product of his activity, level of concentration, freedom from conflicting requirements and demands etc. Perhaps a broader and deeper systematic literature would allow the authors to refine the list of variables. But then the study needs to be redone.

The reference near the formula for calculating the sample looks dubious, this is not the original source.

Neither in the discussion section nor in the conclusions do the authors compare their results with those of other studies.

What is the purpose of the study? The scientific toolkit looks unfinished. Although the article contains interesting results, the methodological apparatus is not completely clear, and the material is not always presented in connected pieces.

Author Response

Dear Sir
Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We did our best to address each of the suggestion at best. We hope that the revised version will meet your expectations. Please find the seperate sheet of response against each suggestion. 
thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

 

the concept of the research is great. I really like the idea. There are some formal and content issues. The main thing is that more studies should be added from 2022 (+ 2023). Also, "Discussion" part is totally missing! Please cite previous studies in "Discussion" - compare the results, highlight differences and similiraties.

All my comments are attached!

All the best!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir
Thank you very much for your constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We did our best to address each of the suggestion at best. We hope that the revised version will meet your expectations. Please find the seperate sheet of response against each suggestion. 
thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Significant Improvements have been made, however, all the suggestions were not incorporated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

Thanks for the constructive suggestions to improve the paper. We did our best to improve the paper. Please find the separate file in the attachment. 

 

thanks 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 

 

Thanks for your constructive suggestions to improve the paper.