Teleworkability, Preferences for Telework, and Well-Being: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The presented article touches on very current trends in work - telework and hybrid work. Until COVID-19, they were used on a limited basis. The pandemic has forced a lot of companies and organizations to change the form of work from stationary to telework or hybrid work. After the end of the pandemic, many employers noticed significant benefits from such forms of work.
Therefore, there are questions about the well-being and safety of employees, similar to questions about stationary work. The author of the article tries to show the state of knowledge on this subject. The presentation is clear. Conclusions are properly documented.
Author Response
Responses to Reviewer #1:
Thank you very much for acknowledging the importance of the topic addressed and for your supportive comments to this work.
After the pandemic, we agreed on the importance to keep telework in companies and organizations in the same way than flexi-time was introduced two decades ago.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I read your study with great interest. My major concern refers to the results section as it remains unclear there which papers you refer to, especially in 3.2. However, this can be easily solved by (a) stating the number of the paper according to the literature list in the appendix + Table 2 in an additional column and (b) stating this in the results section. An additional but minor concern is to please highlight the effect of the pandemic on the results of the studys you quote: having the option to telework may have been perceived as great also because the risk of infection was immensely reduced, child care responsibilities were easier to manage, etc.
Other issues: on page 3, I would switch the first and second as well as the third and fourth paragraph.
Line 174: effect? regarding what?
Line 175: influence of telework intensity
Lines 197ff: rephrase: it is justified because .... - not could justify
Line 209: difference between business and management?
Lines 204ff: please clearly state the exclusion criteria and where the manually added 10 papers came from. Also, include the databases covered by Web of Science
Lines 368ff: why redefine?? define in more detail? but REdefine?
Lines 74ff + 3.2.1-3.2.3: please work on the language used
Line 410 and article: employee wellbeing receives only little attention here (397-400 and 411-417) - this is not really a lot.
I would delete Lines 424-431, the info is interesting, but not relevant for the article.
Please explain figure 4 in the text
Line 466: this is a new information. Please add in the results section.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and effort place on giving me feedback.
Attached you can find the replies to your suggestions and comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you very much for your contribution to this research. This is a very good study, in a field of great interest.The paper is well written and the references seem update. I think that your research is suitable for publication after necessary adjustments that I would like you to make.
1. In line 12 you mention that there are 2 variables, and in line 56 you say that there are 3, a fact also confirmed in lines 68 and 85. Please correct this aspect!
2. Line 88 – I consider that if you added well-being to the other two variables, it should be added here too, as all 3 are well-related.
3. Line 97 - after which year/for the European Commission/for Eurofound, taken as a reference?
4. Line 99 – "similar or higher levels of productivity" - i.e. what are the numerical/percentage data of these levels?
5. Lines 101-105 – I believe that this fragment should be moved after the first sentence of this subchapter (line 90).
6. Lines 135-138 - it would be desirable to specify what type of employees were investigated in the 2 mentioned studies (29, 30), so that the relevance or relativity of the high percentage values of the preference for telework can be seen! I think that if the employees had been part of occupational categories disadvantaged by this kind of activity, the percentage would not have been so high!!!!
7. Lines 142-144 – this statement is true, but only if it refers to those who hold jobs compatible with teleworking, otherwise the statement is quite subjective and may be biased!
8. Lines 146-149 – please provide some data from the cited study to support each statement you made!
9. The same recommendation for the statements made further, in lines 149-154.
10. Lines 159-161 - I recommend that you do not generalize the findings of these studies, because this fact could distort the reality, at least partially, for other professional categories!
11. Lines 162 – 164 - This proposal is unlikely to be reasonable! Normally, through its management, a company can objectify how much and in what form the employee's activity can be profitable. So, the negotiation of the mode of activity must be negotiated in the employee-company context, but any company, going beyond the utopia of the employee's well-being, puts profitability at least on the same level.
12. At 2.3. Telework intensity and Well-being, please, for each statement you make, argue with values taken from the cited studies!
13. Lines 216-217 – the inclusion criteria.... in figure 2, only studies from 2015 appear. Are there no sources in the period 2012-2014 or have they been removed?
14. In the results chapter, you make all kinds of statements, but no scientific data to support them. This paper is not a narrative, it must have real scientific support! What you say may be true, but the reader cannot consult all the sources mentioned (48) to convince himself that it is! The purpose of such an analysis is to provide those interested with objectified data grouped/centralized from works with the same issue. Please redo as reported in lines 365-367. I recommend that you at least relate the essential ideas that you have extracted to numerical data that convinces the reader of the correctness of the statements.
15. Same recommendation for the discussion chapter!
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time and effort dedicated to this manuscript. Attached you can find my replies to your concerns and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
thank you for your work on the article, I feel the paper improved a lot. There are some details I would suggest to change to perfectionate the work:
- Please also add the numbers of the manuscript according to the literature list in Table 2 (like in Table 3)
- Line 48: "Some of these variables": I would rephrase that, it sounds as if you chose the variables of the study randomly.
-Lines 122-125 could be deleted as the information is redundant
-Line 199: would include how you are going to differentiate between studies form pre and post Covid in the study
-Line 225: would briefly add the definition of the scope again and not only state "scope"
-Line 227: you mentioned in the reply wherethese 10 articles came from, please add here
- Typos: Line 91 (ITCs?), Line 181 (has --> have), Line 359 (have --> has), Line 397 (an --> on).
- Line 411: just to clarify: would add "this is definied in this study as sense of community" to "sense of community" in the bracket, if I understood this correctly
- Line 428f: please add a source for "therefore having..." or delete this part of the sentence
All the best!
Author Response
Once again, thank you very much for all the time devoted to this manuscript. I’m very grateful for the effort made. I believe your comments were relevant and have contributed to improving the article. I hope you feel that the changes we have made adequately answer the concerns raised in your report. A point by point response to your comments is presented below. To facilitate the review, we provide the new text highlighted in green in the manuscript.
Responses are in the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author,
I believe the article has been significantly improved, but nevertheless, I would like you to add a few more pieces of information, respectively:
- Line 90 – I consider that if you added well-being to the other two variables, it should be added here too, as all 3 are well-related. Teleworkability and well-being
- I kindly request that you add numerical data, at least for the essential ideas that you have derived. This work is, after all, of a scientific nature, and this character must be supported by real data provided by the studies cited by you. This recommendation applies to both the results chapter and the discussion chapter.
I wish you all the best!
Author Response
First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the time and effort you devoted to this manuscript, once again. I hope you feel that the changes I have made, adequately answer your suggestions.
Responses to your suggestions are in the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
