Work/Family Conflict of More Importance than Psychosocial Working Conditions and Family Conditions for Mental Wellbeing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is paper delves into an important topic: wellbeing of individuals and potential factors that may help to explain it. This paper has clear strengths, such as a large sample. Analysis and interpretation of results seem sound. However, I find that the main issue with this paper is the method and, therefore, limited contribution to theory and practice. Regarding the method, the first concern is common method bias as this study is cross-sectional with self-report data from one single source. The data seems limited as there are concepts/variables that are measured with two items (rather than using full scales). Related to this, it is not clear if the author(s) are measuring work-life balance or work-life conflict. Similarly, this study seems to be focusing on measuring stress rather than mental wellbeing. The study should include a list of the items for each of the variables. I would also suggest to review the variables/concepts used and overall theoretical framework.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the paper is clearly important and the state of the art establishes this. However, I have to major comments which would further strengthen the text and without which the paper as stands does not address fully the state of the art on the topic.
- The Discussion section does not really discuss the findings; it presents the findings in another manner. A mere presentation of the data analyses does not constitute a discussion.
- This is related to a second issue which is that work-life balance is notoriously gendered and there is a plethora of gender research on the topic that addresses mental wellbeing as well. The paper, however, completely omits all the research done into role conflict and its perceptions by women and men. This requires further strengthening.
Other comments:
- l. 44 please specify what the intimate relationships and good living conditions in one's private life are important FOR
- l. 83 It is unclear what sector the author/s refer
- l. 83-85 Please revise the setence - what negative developments are discerned.
- l. 125 - 129 The expalnation give is completely unclear and in the current wording seems tautological. Please rephrase to make clear.
- l. 321-329 The argument in this paragraph is not clearly presented. Please reformulate.
Minor language and editing revisions are needed on lines: 41, 107, , 193, 16, Table 1, 272, 296, 316, 328-329 (unclear sentence), 331, 340, 342, 343, 358
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for the opportunity to review this article. The time involved in submitting your manuscript is greatly appreciated.
Despite this, the article presents a series of issues that must be noted and mended. The recommendations are presented separately by sections. Hopefully, they would be useful.
Title: the title does not adequately reflect the content of the paper. Please, try to change it to better inform the readers about that content.
Abstract:
Less information appears in the abstract. Maybe expanded by adding the most relevant findings.
Introduction:
Firstly, some of the references that you cite are too old, in example, 2001. Even though the most relevant studies should be referenced (Cooper or Dmerouti), also the RECENT research must be included.
Method:
Please, try to better describe the sociodemographic data of your participants. In the same sense, give the readers with detailed information about the procedure for recruiting participants and collecting data.
Related to the instruments, please better inform about their psychometric quality and give to the readers some examples of the items. If you can, please inform about previous studies where the same instrument has been used and the reliability obtained in that research.
Data analyses
Please, explain to the readers which procedures of statistical analyses have been used and justify your decisions.
Results
The results should be presented following the same order as the introduction and hypotheses. Also, the same order must be used in the Tables. This simplifies the work for readers.
Finally, the repetition is constant all over the article. Please, try to change the words in order to do the reading more interesting and motivating
Discussion:
First of all, try to better adjust your conclusions to the findings. Or to say in other words, please try to justify more clearly the connection between your conclusions and your findings.
The most important comment is that some of the conclusions, related to the direct analysis of the results, should be revised.
Finally, a section related to limitations, future lines of investigations and the principal contributions of the research could be interesting. Your paper has a lot of relevant implications for society and policymakers, but you need to elaborate more on this topic.
Conclusion:
They don’t appear new conclusions on this part. This part does not add any new to the rest of the paper. Please, try to condense your findings, or to highlight your main contribution to the field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for clarification and edits. While I understand that common method bias may not be an issue for the reasons given by the authors, I would suggest to address concern about this bias in the methodology section of the manuscript.
With regard to measures, I understand the full SP scale does not need to be included but I would expect an example of one or two items per variable.
Finally, my main concern is that since there is substantial research that supports the relationship between work-life conflict and stress/well-being, this study’s contribution to theory should be stronger. It is not sufficiently clear how analysing the relative importance of different factors for stress/well-being would be valuable for theory and practice. 

Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I acknowledge the changes made by the authors.
I am, however, puzzled by the author's response to comment no 7 and especially "The text is rather short because gender differences are not in focus in this study."
In the discusion section, and in lines 331-336 in particular, it is beyond comprehension that gender analysis is not an integral part. Presenting the findings in a way that is not gender-disaggregated limits the usefullnes of the findings and their relevance. This study deals with issues that are clearly gender-related and I continue to find this the main weakness of the study. Are the mean values in table 2 statistically different for women and men? Are the correlations the same for women and men? The presentation of these findings would be interesting irrespective of whether any significant gender differences are or are not found. Given the analyses of the gendered impacts of COVID-19, I cannot stress enough the importance of integrating the gender dimension into this particular research study.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thank you for considering my comments.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I think the amendments in the manuscript sufficiently address my comments. Well done.
