Economic Sustainable Development through Digital Skills Acquisition: The Role of Human Resource Leadership

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author/s , 

Thank you for choosing this idea to be investigated, however, the paper needs more effort to be considered for a possible publication. 

The abstract needs to be rewritten to focus on why this topic was chosen. 

The literature part (page 2 line 59 till page 4 line 133) needs to be modified as I do not find any reason to mention how many sources used the keyword. 

This part is not adding any value to the work. 

I would expect the literature to focus on the theories, models, and previous studies that cover the variables under investigation. 

Concerning the hypotheses; what is mentioned in line 390 about the critical question is not what is stated earlier in line 10. or line 52. 

Author/s need to be consistent in addressing their idea. 

Concerning the sample: 476 participants from EU countries!!! 

Can you explain the reason behind choosing this sample? 

Can you generalize the findings? 

What is the population? 

What type of sample you are using and why? 

 

The conclusion is very weak and needs more details to link the recurrent findings with the previous studies' findings and suggest areas for practical implications. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Proofreading is needed

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Please see the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper studies the role of Human Resources (HR) leadership in promoting the sustainable development of employees' digital skills. It analyzes the gap between employees' expectations and perceptions regarding digital skills development, including dimensions such as reliability, responsiveness, and empathy.

 

Overall, the paper is too long and somewhat disorganized, with some simple data that seems unnecessary to report or could be combined and streamlined. In general, I believe the paper can be published, but it must undergo the following revisions and improvements before publication.

 

First, the title should not use abbreviations; "HR Leadership" should be changed to the full English term. In the abstract, the first time "HR" appears, it should use the full English term with the abbreviation "HR" indicated in parentheses.

 

Second, in the literature review, the section "2.1 Sustainability" seems unnecessary. Although the author wants to emphasize that the research topic is closely related to sustainability, it is unwise to review sustainability separately because the concept encompasses a wide range of research content that the author cannot fully review. Instead, it would be better to briefly introduce the relationship between the research topic and sustainability here.

 

Third, the separate review of Human Resources, leadership, etc., in the literature review section also seems unnecessary. The author should focus more on reviewing the relationships between these variables rather than describing and summarizing each term individually.

 

Fourth, could the research hypotheses be integrated with the literature review? Currently, there is a separate section for hypotheses after reading the literature, which creates a very disjointed structure. This is not conducive to the reader's understanding.

 

Fifth, there is no need to include "Prefer not to disclose" in Table 2.

 

Sixth, in section 6.2, the gap analysis shows that the mean differences between the two variables are very small. The author should report whether these differences are significant in Tables 6 to 10 and include significance test results. Simply reporting that the mean differences are very small is not meaningful.

 

Seventh, Table 14 needs a specific title, rather than just being replaced with "Regression Model."

 

Eighth, the research limitations need to be more clearly defined. The research may primarily focus on opinions from a specific region, which may lack broader applicability.

 

Ninth, further refine and enhance the theoretical framework and literature review. Although the author has already made some summaries, they are still relatively thin. Further refinement is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Please see the attachment file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear  Authors, 

Thank you for submitting the revised paper. 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English languge is accepted 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form