Contributions of Neuroleadership to the School Administrator and Teachers for the Development of Organizational Behavior

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

sustainability-2555210-peer-review-v1

 

Contributions of Neuroleadership to the School Administrator and Teachers for Development of Organizational Behavior

Introduction:

“ it can be thought that this leadership style will positively affect organizational behavior in particular. work within the organization as a natural consequence It investigates the effect of employees on organizational behavior”— pay attention to punctuation

“As can be understood from this explanation, it can be said that organizational behavior has a very important place in educational management”. It would be better if they were expressed differently.

The introductory part is quite complex.

In this study, the objectives are given, but the subject of what is actually intended to be done has not been mentioned.

METHOD :

Why was the selected study group chosen? Have these people received any training on neuroleadership before? As if knowledge-level questions were asked about neuroleadership? This part seems pretty problematic.

So, what are researchers trying to understand, information, opinions, feelings?

This is the most problematic part of the article.

Research Aims and Objectives: In the text, there is not enough explanation about why the qualitative research method is used. The purpose and objectives of the research should be clearly stated, and how the qualitative method supports these goals should be explained.

 

Research Design and Selection of Cases: It should be explained more clearly what the "case analysis design" is and why this design is preferred. More information should be given about the number of cases selected, how they were selected, and the representativeness of the sample.

 

Data Collection Process: The data collection process should include details about the interviews and explain how the participants were selected. In addition, clear information should be given about how the data is recorded and the safeguards regarding privacy.

 

Data Analysis: The data analysis process, the steps of the content analysis method used and how the data are categorized should be explained in more detail.

 

Reliability of the Research: It is necessary to explain the methods used to increase the reliability of the research. For example, the researchers' pre-acceptance or another researcher's data validation process should be specified.

 

Limitations: The limitations of the study should be stated more clearly. It should be explained on which subjects the study is limited and how the results can be interpreted.

 

Presentation of Results: It should be stated how the obtained data are presented and how the results of the analysis are supported.

 

Findings:

 

 

The findigng part of this study was written as a quantitative research. It is not very suitable for qualitative research criteria.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Contributions of Neuroleadership to the School Administrator and Teachers for Development of Organizational Behavior"

here are my comments: 

1. the abstract is vague. it needs to cover : introduction and/or background, approach and context of the research + aims, methodology used, and a brief conclusion. 

2. keywords can be refined as they are repetitive with the title. keywords should/can cover the broader scope of the research and its context. 

3. the text is repetitive and the tone of writing is incoherent. 

4. the context of the research is lost in the introduction. 

4.1 majority of references in the introduction are not recent. authors must build their arguments using the most recent and/or relevant findings in the literature. 

5. the aims and contributions of the research are unclear

6. lack of support by theoretical frameworks. authors can find an abundance of theories that can support their arguments in this regard. 

7. the research methodology should be supported and justified. 

7.1 instead of explaining other methodologies that are not used in the research, authors should focus on justifying and explaining their methodology!

8. why 13 interviewees were selected? on which basis this number was calculated? 

9. what were the concerns regarding intercoder agreement? 

10. what does "categorized one by one" mean? 

11. how were the patterns coded? 

11.1 what does "similar patterns" imply? 

11.2 what was the coding system? 

11.3 you mention "4 stages of analysis" but it is not explained nor 4 stages of analyses are presented. 

11.4 which software was used ? 

11.5 which type of "content analysis" was performed? thematic, neuro, conceptual, relational, mode, etc. ? 

12. based on the aforementioned issues the discussion upon the findings remain unreliable. 

13. conclusions should be rewritten after implementing the noted edits. 

the conclusion section should refer to the context, aims, and the overall subject of the research while maintaining recency through the support of most recent findings in the literature. 

in addition, theoretical and practical implications should be separated into sub-sections on their own merits. 

14. recommendations should be based on the limitations of the research that are theoretical, conceptual, contextual, methodical, and analytical. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

the text is repetitive and the tone of writing is incoherent. 

lexical, sentence structure, grammatical, and punctuation issues. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since it is the qualitative method, it should add to the literature review.  The technique should be precise and show the steps of the interview.  The background of the interviewee also is added. 

The discussion should be answered three research questions in the introduction. 

What is the academic contribution of this research? 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peer-reviewed scientific study of 14 pages is undoubtedly a very interesting scientific work, the content of which can be beneficial not only for theory but also for practice.

However, the authors probably neglected to sufficiently read the instructions for authors available on the journal's website and strictly follow them so that the content structure is respected.

For this reason, the lack already occurs in the abstract, where I recommend expanding it by setting the goal, the scientific research methods used, as well as specifying the results of the study themselves.

In the introduction, there is a lack of justification for the choice of topic, a really clearly defined main goal and secondary goals. I didn't even find the establishment of hypotheses, but at least three research questions, which the authors should have clearly answered in the fifth chapter, which would fulfill the very meaning of their scientific work.

The theoretical overview could be a separate part, but it is integrated in the part "1. Introduction'. However, I am of the opinion that there are also other suitable scientific works that deal with such a demanding and complex issue as leadership, i.e. working with people and their motivation. However, you also need to answer the "preliminary" question - who is the manager, what are his tasks, what is his relationship to the organization managed by him (commercial law, labor law). In order to increase the scientific value of the work, I recommend the authors to process these questions as well, as Central European authors, such as for example:

Peráček T. & Kaššaj M. (2023).  The influence of jurisprudence on the formation of relations between the manager and the limited liability company. Juridical Tribune. 13 (1), pp. 43-62. 10.24818/TBJ/2023/13/1.04

 

Matic, Andrea Elena, and Stefania Christina Mirica. 2022. Specific deontological rules applicable for the public manager in the contemporary Romanian society. Perspectives of Law and Public Administration 11, pp. 79–87.

 

Jankelova, Nadezda, Joniakova Zuzana, Andrea Cajkova, and Anita Romanova. 2021. Leadership Competencies in communal policy. Politicke vedy 24 (1), pp. 181–204, doi: 10.24040/politickevedy.2021.24.1.181-204

 

As I mentioned, in the conclusion it is necessary to clearly answer the set three research questions with proper justification. I recommend devoting a few sentences to the question of further research in the last chapter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the edits have met my concerns

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor edits required

Author Response

Thanks for your approval.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- There is a lack of literature review part.

- This study aims to determine the relationship between neuroleadership, organizational culture, and behavior in primary schools in the Northern part of Cyprus. However, the question is still limited and unassociated with the research aim. 

- Materials and Methods are so simple, and how does the author determine the relationship between neuroleadership, organizational culture, and behavior? Which results show the relationship? 

 

 

 

Author Response

See the attached file for the reviewer's comments and responses... Thanks

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am concerned that the authors probably misunderstood my recommendations and the changes they made are almost only "cosmetic".

The abstract was supplemented, but I don't know why the key words are written in capital letters and why they are not in alphabetical order?

As I stated in the first review, the theoretical overview is integrated in the introduction, it should have been a separate part in the sense of an instruction for authors on the page of this scientific journal.

My recommendations regarding the processing of the "preliminary" question - who is the manager, what are his tasks, what is his relationship to the organization managed by him (commercial law, labor law) were handled "somehow very strangely" or ignored.

Please explain how you were limited by the number of words. Nowhere on the website of the MDPI or individual journals did I find a limit on the number of words.

Also my recommendation for further research is chapter "7. Limitations"??

Author Response

See the attached file for the reviewer's comments and responses

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Materials and Methods are so simple, and how does the author determine the relationship between neuroleadership, organizational culture, and behavior?

Which results show the relationship? 

Add more discussion related to this research result. 

Please consider carefully the last comments and correct them. 

Author Response

Thanks for taking your time to review our manuscript. We've attached Reviewers comments and responses file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am glad that the authors accepted my comments, based on which I can recommend publishing the article in this revised version.

Author Response

Thanks for taking your time to review the revised version of our manuscript.