Managing Neurodiversity in Workplaces: A Review and Future Research Agenda for Sustainable Human Resource Management

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

carefully read the Guidelines for Authors available on the website of this scientific journal.

In my opinion, this is not a classic research article, but a review study based on the available literature contained in the SCOPU database. However, it is up to you whether you continue to characterize the manuscript as an "Article" or a "Review".

I do not recommend using abbreviations in the abstract. In addition, the abstract is not properly written, it is very general. It should contain a clear determination of the goal of your scientific study, the material and methods used. It is also necessary to specify the results of the study in the abstract. Sort the keywords in alphabetical order. However, it is not a necessity.

Please check and unify the terms regarding the title of the manuscript itself. What is it about? Contribution, paper, scientific study, scientific article, review article?

In the introduction, state more strongly the reasons and needs of the scientific study. I recommend more clearly setting the main goal and secondary goals of the research as well as setting the research questions.

I have a small remark in the content of the third chapter, which I recommend to finish. The used scientific research methods, both quantitative and qualitative, must also be described, and partially characterized and justified their significance of use for individual parts of the study. However, do not forget the inherent need for such methods as analysis, synthesis, deduction, comparison, induction. Their meaning and use for individual parts of your manuscript should be stated. I am convinced that without them it is impossible to write any scientific work, and certainly not in such an important scientific journal.

This methodological issue is very well addressed in current work such as:

 Kaššaj M., Peráček, T. 2024. Synergies and Potential of Industry 4.0 and Automated Vehicles in Smart City Infrastructure. Applied Sciences, 14 (9): 3575. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14093575

Mutambik, Ibrahim, John Lee, Abdullah Almuqrin, Justin Zuopeng Zhang, and Abdullah Homadi. 2023. "The Growth of Social Commerce: How It Is Affected by Users' Privacy Concerns" Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 18, no. 1: 725-743. https://doi.org/10.3390/jtaer18010037

The first work, in addition to the methodological part, also deals with the legal side of the matter, the addition of which, in my opinion, can provide added value to your scientific work.

I am glad that the conclusion contains a mention of the direction of future research, which can help and inspire other researchers in this hitherto little-explored scientific area.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you so much for your valuable comments.

Please see the attachment with the response to Review.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your effort in this important endeavor to examine the advancement of the topic and entice scholars and practitioners to manage neurodiversity in the workplace. 

The study was well-designed and the methods were appropriately applied. It employed a domain-based systematic literature review with structured review and bibliometric analysis of SCOPUS. This hybrid approach offered important insights for advancing knowledge on implementing and managing neurodiversity in the workplace. 

Neurodiversity was defined as any kind of cognitive processing or way of making sense of the world that deviates from “typical” ways of thinking and being. Yet, the discussion about the neurodiversity followed primarily the current clinical and disability terms, such as autism, ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, epilepsy, or bipolar disorder. 

It would be thought provoking to expand the current categorization of neurodiversity for future adoption. It could include conditions such as various levels of IQ, mental health, neuro-plasticity levels due to ageism, certain personality traits, experience or self-diagnosed perception of ADHD. It should be noted that in our society people are not yet fully open to reveal their IQ, inner traits or attitudes to their employers, thus creating a resistance to a full adoption and monitoring of truly neuro-diverse workforce. 

In the literature review section, two theoretical frameworks were introduced but with a limited depth: Self-determination Theory (SDT) and Universally Designed Synergistic Supervision (UDSS). As a suggestion, perhaps the study cluster results in Table 1 could have been aligned somehow with some of the sub-dimensions of the theories.  

Figure 5 seemed not to be critical to include in the paper, it carries unnecessary details of particular author names.  Figure 6 was also nice to see but provided little useful insights. I would remove both figures.  Table 2 should be in placed in appendix and remove from the main body of the manuscript. 

Best of luck with the publication.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you so much for your valuable comments.

Please see the attachment with the response to Review.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Managing neurodiversity in workplaces-a review and future research agenda for sustainable HRM” has been carefully reviewed.

The research topic is quite interesting, the idea is insightful, and the manuscript is well-written. However, there are some minor problems the authors need to take care of.

 Comments and suggestions

 

1. Please change the title to "Managing neurodiversity in workplaces: a review and future research agenda for sustainable HRM." By the way, please use the full term instead of HRM.
2. The authors should reorganize and restructure the abstract. Even though each sentence is understandable, its logistics and connections to each sentence are currently weak.
3. The authors should reselect the keywords that effectively convey the primary focus of this study.
4. The introduction section is too brief, and the authors should enrich it to better introduce the significance of this study.
5. I believe there is a typo in lines 104 and 106; could you please verify it?
6. The structure of the literature review section is not that clear; please restructure it, and maybe you can use the subsections.
7. "3. Results" seems to be a typo, and it should actually read "4. Results.".
8. Figures 4 and 5 lack beauty; please create a better version of them.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of the English language is required.

Please check your typo and grammar issues.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you so much for your valuable comments.

Please see the attachment with the response to Review.

Best regards.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I am glad that you accepted my comments, which increased the scientific value of your work. Based on these changes, I recommend the revised manuscript for publication.

Best regards, reviewer