Workplace Bullying Experience Predicts Same-Day Affective Rumination but Not Next Morning Mood: Results from a Moderated Mediation Analysis Based on a One-Week Daily Diary Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions that, at least from my point of view, are thought to be improved or explained in the research are listed below.

 1.      The key concern is about the sample selection. The author mentioned ‘Participants of the present study had to be currently employed and have experience with interpersonal conflict in the workplace’ (lines 209-2100. How was the fact of experience in interpersonal conflicts fixed?

2.      In the limitations, the authors outlined ‘our sample showed limited self-reported workplace bullying experience and overall, relatively high levels of mood and well-being’ (lines 502-503). To what extent is it possible to analyze workplace bullying issues by using this small sample with limited experience in such cases?

3.      The justification that this small sample size is adequate to run linear regression with interaction effects is necessary.

4.      It is not clear enough how the authors used The Luxembourg Workplace Mobbing Scale. According to the description, 5-point (line 249) and dichotomous (line 252) versions were used simultaneously. However, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω) was mentioned once.

5.      The sample is outnumbered by females (80%). Please explain to what extent this fact can affect the outcomes obtained.

6.      As for technical issues, there are several typos in the text (for instance, repeated phrases in lines 509-515). The authors should also check the numeration of tables in the Result section. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, I believe that this is a well-written paper that requires some minor editing. 

Author Response

Dear Ms Geng, dear editorial board, dear reviewers,

we hereby submit our revised manuscript with the ID: sustainability-2603760 authored by Roman Pauli, Maria Thissen, Jessica Lang and me to SUSTAINABILITY. Following the suggestion of reviewer 2, please note that we revised our title and the manuscript is now entitled “Workplace Bullying Experience Predicts Same Day Affective Rumination but Not Next Morning Mood. Results from a moderated mediation analysis based on a one-week daily diary study”.

We were very happy that our paper was considered for the peer review process and thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript and submit a revised version for the reviewers.

Based on the constructive feedback and helpful advice from the reviewers, we have revised the initial manuscript. On behalf of all authors, we very much appreciate the time and effort the reviewers’ put into reviewing the paper. We have carefully read the reviewers’ feedback and along with our revised manuscript, you will find a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments below. All changes are marked in the manuscript (please see the attachment). All authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the article and declare no conflict of interest.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Lisa Auweiler on behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Feedback:

Your team has clearly invested considerable effort into this research, and the paper has a number of strengths. However, I recommend some revisions to enhance its clarity and alignment with academic standards.

Title:

The current title might not fully capture the essence of the paper. To assist readers, consider a title that better outlines the relationships among your tested variables and offers a hint about the sample quality and study design. As your study is correlational, avoid implying causal relationships.

Abstract:

The abstract would benefit from a more detailed summary. Since many readers might only access this section, it's essential to offer more comprehensive information. Include specifics about the number of participants and their general characteristics, especially if they are victims.

Keywords:

List your keywords alphabetically for ease of reference. Additionally, refrain from using keywords already present in the title. Diversifying keywords can optimize the discoverability of your study during searches.

Introduction:

While the literature review is extensive, some references seem outdated. Many journals now prioritize recent references, typically from the last five years. Consider updating where relevant.

Method:

Elaborate on the victims you approached: those who declined participation and any pertaining response rate. Also, there seems to be an inconsistency with the alpha value (α = .17) in line 256. Please verify.

Statistical Analyses:

Certain tables (like Table 1) could use footnotes for clearer comprehension of their content.

Discussion:

Ensure that your conclusions directly align with your findings. The connection between what was found and what is inferred should be unmistakably clear. A dedicated section on limitations, future research directions, and the core contributions of your study would enhance the paper's depth. Address potential concerns about sample size and the verifiability of participant information.

Furthermore, the implications of your research for educators, psychologists, and policymakers are significant. Delving deeper into these aspects could amplify the paper's impact.

I trust these suggestions will serve to enhance the quality and clarity of your paper. Your effort in contributing to the academic community is commendable. Looking forward to the revised version.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Ms Geng, dear editorial board, dear reviewers,

we hereby submit our revised manuscript with the ID: sustainability-2603760 authored by Roman Pauli, Maria Thissen, Jessica Lang and me to SUSTAINABILITY. Following the suggestion of reviewer 2, please note that we revised our title and the manuscript is now entitled “Workplace Bullying Experience Predicts Same Day Affective Rumination but Not Next Morning Mood. Results from a moderated mediation analysis based on a one-week daily diary study”.

We were very happy that our paper was considered for the peer review process and thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript and submit a revised version for the reviewers.

Based on the constructive feedback and helpful advice from the reviewers, we have revised the initial manuscript. On behalf of all authors, we very much appreciate the time and effort the reviewers’ put into reviewing the paper. We have carefully read the reviewers’ feedback and along with our revised manuscript, you will find a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments below. All changes are marked in the manuscript (please see the attachment). All authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the article and declare no conflict of interest.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Lisa Auweiler on behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I reviewed the paper, I have following comments

 

1.       Introduction section was well presented and related literature was presented in a good manner.

2.       Paper analysis is weak as Author reported that they used the cross-sectional data and they have used a Linear regression model, however for such kinds of studies Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a highly suitable analytical tool. They simply used mediation and moderation analysis which is not appropriate.

3.       Author presented the results in good manner, but there are certain formatting problems while presenting the results, for example in table 2 results are not clearly not evident. The results values are Ok but still for such kinds of studies the Structure equation modeling should have been used.

 

The paper required major revision.

Author Response

Dear Ms Geng, dear editorial board, dear reviewers,

we hereby submit our revised manuscript with the ID: sustainability-2603760 authored by Roman Pauli, Maria Thissen, Jessica Lang and me to SUSTAINABILITY. Following the suggestion of reviewer 2, please note that we revised our title and the manuscript is now entitled “Workplace Bullying Experience Predicts Same Day Affective Rumination but Not Next Morning Mood. Results from a moderated mediation analysis based on a one-week daily diary study”.

We were very happy that our paper was considered for the peer review process and thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript and submit a revised version for the reviewers.

Based on the constructive feedback and helpful advice from the reviewers, we have revised the initial manuscript. On behalf of all authors, we very much appreciate the time and effort the reviewers’ put into reviewing the paper. We have carefully read the reviewers’ feedback and along with our revised manuscript, you will find a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments below. All changes are marked in the manuscript (please see the attachment). All authors have seen and approved the submitted version of the article and declare no conflict of interest.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Lisa Auweiler on behalf of all co-authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many thanks for considering my comments. Best regards,