Job Crafting Competences and the Levels of Self-Organization, Job Satisfaction and Job Redesign in a Mature Organization

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Here are some comments on this study to make it better:

1) The article's content is presented in the direction of describing a process of building and designing an information system rather than a scientific article. The author needs to build the content of the article towards the following contents: (a) Introduction, (b) Literature, (c) Research method, (d) Result, (e) Discussion, and (f) Conclusion and Further research.

2) The introduction should be rewritten. One of the most pressing challenges is the theoretical research gap. If other academics have not done anything, it does not imply a research gap; our analysis identified a knowledge gap critical for manuscript submission to SCIE journals. Please provide a well-defined research gap. Furthermore, please explain why it is vital to include comprehensive poverty eradication in the theoretical contribution for the study area; hence, restructure the introduction. Typically, the framework will consist of the following elements: the significance of the issue, motivation (optional), research gap(s), aims, and possible contributions (optional). The lack of research gap(s) reduced the paper's value.

3) The literature review must be added.

4) Please add the research method, data collection method, the information related to the respondents

5) The presentation of the statistical results with tables and text commentary is rather amateurish. Tables look like computer output and commentary is more like reading the tables than highlighting key findings!

6) Conclusion should emphasize the contribution of this study as well as limitations, further research

7) There are still several language issues found that influence the manuscript's readability. Therefore, the reviewer still suggests that the authors use the service as a native proofreader.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable and detailed comments. All of them have been used to revise the article. The amendments and additions are presented below.

1. The content of the article is presented as follows: Introduction with literature review, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions and References. Each part of the article has been supplemented according to the Review.
2. The Introduction was supplemented with the content suggested by the Reviewer. I defined a research gap, explaining the importance of the study area. It is written in the following order: the importance of the problem, motivation, research gap, research objectives and its contribution to science.
3. I added a literature review.
4. In the Materials and Methods I added a description of data collection and research methods with information on the selection of respondents, their number and characteristics.
5. In the Results, I supplemented the text with key findings resulting from the analysis of statistical data presented in tables. I added a comment to each table.
6. In the Conclusions, I emphasized the theoretical and practical contribution of the research. I mentioned the limitations and indicated a need for further research.
7. The article will be read again by the translator to avoid linguistic mistakes.

Yours faithfully,

Jarosław Kardas

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract is good with clearly identified results and perspectives. 

Introduction is well written however it is very vague and general  - the author does not provide any related research stating there there is almost none - it would be good to show the research if not on this particular problem - then close to it. 

The methods section gives detailed description of RQ and RH

However the section is based almost entirely on the author's own elaboration. The classification of the maturity of the organization is interesting however even though the author states that there is little research on  job satisfaction and on employee behaviours initiating job crafting implementation, there is sufficient research on organization as a phenomenon.  It looks odd that the whole classification does not rely on any research on the matter. 

Survey metrics is presented clearly

The results section presents very detailed data on the survey - however those more than 10 tables are mostly raw data on the answers with some general observations of the author. It would be good to add some outcomes summed up in some tables so that the section presents more results as the following Discussion section does not provide the clear results as well. The Discussion  section reads more like introduction.

The idea of the paper is good and interesting. - the survey an author's reflections are good and promising. - however the author needs to rely on some fundamental works and develop his ideas either relying on them or partly relying or developing his own theory but providing the background of existing knowledge and moving forward from there - in the present form the ideas seem isolated from all the studies. The logic of the research in this format though not completely interrupted but needs some grounding anyway

It is obvious that while connecting the ideas the reference list will improve too - as it is not sufficient

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable and detailed comments. All of them have been used to revise the article. The corrections and additions are presented below.

1. The content of the article is presented as follows: Introduction with literature review, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, Conclusions and References. The content of each part of the article was supplemented according to the Review. I presented a literature review discussing other studies related to the problems addressed in the research. As recommended, I supplemented the Introduction with additional content: I defined the research gap explaining the importance of the study area. It is written according to the following order: the importance of the research problem, motivation, research gap, objectives of the research and its contribution to science.
2. I in the literature review I discussed the research and analysis of other authors in the context of my own research. In the Materials and Methods I added a description of data collection and research methods and information on the selection of respondents, their number and characteristics. I added the assessment of the maturity of an organization, referring to maturity models and publications in this area.
3. In the Results, I supplemented the text with key findings resulting from the analysis of statistical data presented in tables. I added a substantive comment to each table. I also supplemented the Discussion with new scientific reports related to the research topic and analysis of the results.
4. In the Conclusions, I emphasized the theoretical and practical contribution of the research. I discussed the limitations and indicated a need for further research. In the paper I improved the research logic.
5. I have significantly expanded the reference list to 74 publications.

Yours sincerely,

Jarosław Kardas

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have successfully addressed all of the concerns raised during the review process and I believe the paper is now ready for publication. Well done!

Reviewer 2 Report

The author addressed majority of my points, some minor spell and style check is required