Influence of Individual Skill Variety on Side-Hustle Intention: The Mediating Effect of Role Breadth Self-Efficacy and the Moderating Role of Side-Hustle Meaningfulness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting article from various points of view. Very well written and very well reasoned.

Some weaknesses in terms of the method:

1. It is not understood who the participants are, and how they were recruited and selected; What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria considered for your selection?

2. The "age" categorization states that the lower class is under 25 years old - I ask - any age under 25 years old? Example 12?

3. When choosing participants, the following requirements/information were taken into account: were all participants working at the time of data collection? In addition to "official" work, did all participants have a "multiple job holding"? one or more? and if so, for how long? If yes, was/is the experience positive or negative? and if not, did they intend to have it?

4. All these questions should have been asked in the questionnaire because, in my opinion, they can influence the results.

5. The references section is missing: Bandura (1997);

6. Some minor mistakes, that should be fixed: Line 96: "is" --> are; Line 167: "Thus" --> Thus, ; Line 306: Is missing the word "Table" before "4"--> Table 4; Line 309: "were" --> was; Line 402: "is" --> are; Line 407: "Thier" --> Their; Line 437: "Through" -->Thrugh; Line: 456: delete the word "to".

 

Thank you

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well-written paper. I really like it. This research tried to study how and when individual skill variety affects side-hustle intention from an individual level. The author has done very well and in place in this respect, and the structure of the paper is relatively complete. The topic is new in this field and really addressed some important gaps. This study extends the research on the antecedent of side hustle by discovering a new factor. I would like to provide the following suggestions to authors.

1. I am not sure if your paper fits the theme of “sustainability”. This paper should be more of an OB field article and is not consistent with the main body of the journal. Of course, since the editor sent me this manuscript, I won't bother with this issue. It is choice of authors and editors.

2. The MDPI format required the reference in [1]..., please revise it.

3. For methodology improvement, I suggested the authors to report why these variables should be include (lines 267-268). 

4. You dropped two items (SH2 and SH7) in Table 2, resulting in the AVE value＜0.5. Strictly speaking, this value should be greater than 0.5. So, it might be better to try leaving these two items out of the model.

5.  In addition, there is a proposal for decimal point unification. For example, in Table 6, two decimal places are retained in some cases and three in others. Please pay attention to such details.

6. The conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The references  also include many up-to-date research. Good job!

7. For tables, authors may required to unify the criteria for tables. For example, decide whether to capitalize the first letter.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The version of the manuscript now sent with the corrections that I suggested (and also from the other reviewers) made the article, in my opinion, with high quality to be published in this journal.

Sincerely