Accreditation Process and Employee Well-Being in Healthcare Organizations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this study, data from 569 healthcare providers were used to evaluate the attitudes of personal healthcare providers toward the impact of accreditation on organizational integrity and employee well-being. The authors found that healthcare professionals rate the impact of accreditation on improving service quality better than institutional performance, which relates to its impact on employee well-being.
Every work done on health services is commendable. However, to reach the desired quality, the authors should fully address the issues mentioned for some studies, including this study. Some shortcomings/uncertainties related to this study are listed below:
The expressions used in the summary of the study should be reviewed, and these expressions should be more precise and concise.
Although the study's introduction and literature review parts are well discussed, the methodology part of the study has not been adequately addressed. This section should be expanded.
Although it is emphasized that a quantitative research method was chosen in this study, there is not enough information about which method (primarily statistical) is used. The methodology part of the study should include the mathematical background of the especially preferred correlation and x2 methods.
Table 5 should be revised, and the expressions in the cells should be arranged.
Limitations of the study should be included in the discussion section.
Concluding the study, interpret your findings at a higher level of abstraction. Also, in this section, the state in concise terms what your findings mean to readers and researchers.
In general, the authors handled the study well, and the parts of the study were neatly planned. This study will reach the desired quality by eliminating the deficiencies mentioned above.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
thank you for your tips, suggestions and recommendations. We appreciated very much your work and efforts.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I suggest developing the discussion of the empirical results a little further, also with reference to the literature citedAuthor Response
Dear reviewers,
thank you for your tips, suggestions and recommendations. We appreciated very much your work and efforts.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I enjoyed reviewing this manuscript. The manuscript is interesting, however, there are few concerns that should be addressed:
1. The introduction does not clearly identify the gap(s) in literature and existing empirical inconsistencies. The authors should provide a strong justification for the need for the study.
2. The proposed hypotheses should flow logically from the literature. Each hypothesis should be discussed separately with sufficient literature support.
3. The methodology lacks rigor. How the items were chosen for the questionnaire, pretesting, and validation should be discussed.
4. Findings are adequately explained.
5. The discussions are limited. It should be in line with the literature.
6. The theoretical and practical implications are very limited. The direction for future research and limitations should be adequately outlined.
Satisfactory
Author Response
Dear reviewers,
thank you for your tips, suggestions and recommendations. We appreciated very much your work and efforts.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
I have no further comments. Revisions or additional explanations related to the previous review have been carried out. Best wishes!
Satisfactory
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you for your recommendation. We appreciated your work and efforts very much. We carefully read the written text and edited the English language.
Regards,
Viljaras Reigas
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
