Understanding the Effects of Organizational Climate and Creative Work Involvement on Readiness for Organizational Change: A Research on Shipbuilding Industry in Turkey
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research design, methodology, and results are presented clearly, and the discussion effectively ties the findings back to the hypotheses and theoretical framework. However, I have some suggestions:
1) Make the abstract concise, focusing on the most critical findings and their implications.
2) While the results section is detailed and informative, the authors could enhance it by providing more context for some statistical findings. For instance, when discussing the regression and SEM results, briefly remind the reader what a significant beta coefficient means practically for the shipbuilding industry.
3) Compare the findings with similar studies in the literature review, establishing how your research contributes to the field knowledge.
4) The authors provided a good explanation of the sample. Consider adding a more detailed justification for why this specific population (Turkish shipbuilding companies) is particularly relevant
5) Cronbach's alpha is a widely used measure of internal consistency. Still, it has some limitations, such as its assumption of tau-equivalence (i.e., all items have the same true score variance). Consider other alternatives: McDonald's Omega, Composite Reliability, or Average Variance Extracted.
6) While you have described the data collection methods, adding more detail about the specific procedures followed during surveys and interviews (e.g., duration, setting, and how confidentiality was ensured) would enhance the reproducibility and transparency of your research.
7) The explanation of the validity and reliability tests is thorough. Including a brief discussion of why these specific scales (e.g., those developed by [43], [15], [26]) were chosen and how they have been validated in previous studies would strengthen your methodological section.
8) The authors mention the limitations of the sample size and scope. Expanding on other potential limitations (e.g., potential biases in self-reported data, the impact of cultural factors specific to Turkey) and suggesting how future research could address these limitations would be beneficial.
9) Discuss the potential broader impacts of the research findings beyond the shipbuilding industry. How might your results inform organizational change practices in other sectors or regions?
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable review. Please see the attachment for our responses.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study deals with the effects of organizational climate and creative work involvement on readiness for organizational change safety, focusing on the shipbuilding industry. I hope the following explains:
1. In the Introduction, paragraphs that consist of only one sentence, like lines 33-37, need to be restructured. Also, it is recommended to remove the information concerning the organization of the paper as described in lines 74-80.
2. It is necessary to segment the Literature Review and Hypotheses into subsections and describe each hypothesis based on existing literature.
3. In the Research method, it is necessary to explain how the research factors and measurement variables are structured and the survey questions. Additionally, a description of the research method and discrimination criteria (including references) for reliability analysis and model fit testing is required.
4. It is necessary to use a table to explain how the survey questions were classified by factor and what questions were excluded from the exploratory factor analysis results. Additionally, it is necessary to use the results to graphically express how the initial SEM and the final SEM are connected.
5. In discussions, it is crucial to compare research results with previous studies and explain their significance and practicality. Additionally, the study's limitations are necessary.
6. In Conclusion, it is necessary to describe only practical and meaningful results.
7. Remember to format the references according to the guidelines provided by the Sustainability Journal.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThis study deals with the effects of organizational climate and creative work involvement on readiness for organizational change safety, focusing on the shipbuilding industry. I hope the following explains:
1. In the Introduction, paragraphs that consist of only one sentence, like lines 33-37, need to be restructured. Also, it is recommended to remove the information concerning the organization of the paper as described in lines 74-80.
2. It is necessary to segment the Literature Review and Hypotheses into subsections and describe each hypothesis based on existing literature.
3. In the Research method, it is necessary to explain how the research factors and measurement variables are structured and the survey questions. Additionally, a description of the research method and discrimination criteria (including references) for reliability analysis and model fit testing is required.
4. It is necessary to use a table to explain how the survey questions were classified by factor and what questions were excluded from the exploratory factor analysis results. Additionally, it is necessary to use the results to graphically express how the initial SEM and the final SEM are connected.
5. In discussions, it is crucial to compare research results with previous studies and explain their significance and practicality. Additionally, the study's limitations are necessary.
6. In Conclusion, it is necessary to describe only practical and meaningful results.
7. Remember to format the references according to the guidelines provided by the Sustainability Journal.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable review. Please see the attachment for our responses.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well revised, reflecting the reviewer’s comments. I think the paper meets the standard of the journal, and the revised manuscript is now acceptable.
