Enhancing Productivity at Home: The Role of Smart Work and Organizational Support in the Public Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.- Introduction

I recommend the authors start the introduction with two elements: First, it's important to clarify for the reader from the beginning what we mean by “Smart work”. Not doing so may lead to confusion with other related concepts, such as telework. Second, provide background and statistics on “Smart work”. How many people have access to these types of contracts and what are the pros and cons of their implementation. In which cases or industries they are exactly applied or have been adopted, etc. For example, line 35 says “in some cases”, I believe it's necessary to explain what that case was to give more context to the reader. Additionally, I recommend the authors to more clearly state the problem that this study addresses and then, after that, state the objective. In the current form, it's the other way around, the objective is stated first and then the reason why. In its current form, it seems that the research must be carried out because there is a scarcity of work in the area, and then some conceptual relationships are established without much context.

2.- Theoretical background 

I recommend the authors begin this section with the concept of “Smart work”. In my opinion, there isn't a clear definition of the concept in the document. I recommend reviewing definitions from various authors and narrating the history of the concept. This will surely add a lot of value to your work. During the development of hypotheses, I recommend being more specific about the studies being conducted, specifying the industry or type of company of the finding. The implications or evaluation could differ significantly between industries, and this should be assessable by the reader. Regarding hypotheses 2 and 3, the title talks about a “buffering effect” and the hypothesis mentions a “negative moderation”. I understand that a buffering effect is a type of moderation, but I recommend homogenizing the concepts in both the title and hypotheses.

3. Material and Methods         

I recommend the authors in section 3.1 to add the country where the survey was conducted, or if it was applied worldwide (this is not clear), and the point in time when the data were collected. Additionally, I recommend incorporating a table with demographic data. I'm not sure if the instrument contained the question, but it would be interesting to know more information about the industry and job position. For this, incorporate these control variables in the table mentioned previously. Regarding the measurement scales, please mention in which contexts the original scales were applied. Finally, in my opinion, the best way to evaluate the proposed hypotheses is through a structural equation modeling approach (since the model primarily incorporates latent variables). I believe the authors could complement this study by showing the moderating effects in the proposed model (fig 1) with a variance-based structural equation modeling PLS SEM due to the sample characteristics. Showing first an analysis of reliability and validity of the scales, along with discriminant validity analysis. To then evaluate the structural model with the proposed hypotheses. It is a decision the authors must make. In the case of maintaining the current form, it is necessary to present more background on the reliability and validity of the scales, as well as discriminant validity. In addition to clearly showing the readers the specification of the models.

4.-Discussion 

The discussion should delve deeper by relating the research findings to prior literature. Endeavor to incorporate, in addition to the implications for the industry, implications for academia and for society.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

R1: Introduction. I recommend the authors start the introduction with two elements: First, it's important to clarify for the reader from the beginning what we mean by “Smart work”. Not doing so may lead to confusion with other related concepts, such as telework. Second, provide background and statistics on “Smart work”. How many people have access to these types of contracts and what are the pros and cons of their implementation. In which cases or industries they are exactly applied or have been adopted, etc. For example, line 35 says “in some cases”, I believe it's necessary to explain what that case was to give more context to the reader. Additionally, I recommend the authors to more clearly state the problem that this study addresses and then, after that, state the objective. In the current form, it's the other way around, the objective is stated first and then the reason why. In its current form, it seems that the research must be carried out because there is a scarcity of work in the area, and then some conceptual relationships are established without much context.

A(s): Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with the reviewer. As the reviewer will see, we have modified both the introduction and the paragraph on the theoretical background, clarifying the concept of Smart working, the sector in which it was explored (the Italian Public Administration), and finally, we have better clarified the objectives of this study.

R1: Theoretical background. I recommend the authors begin this section with the concept of “Smart work”. In my opinion, there isn't a clear definition of the concept in the document. I recommend reviewing definitions from various authors and narrating the history of the concept. This will surely add a lot of value to your work. During the development of hypotheses, I recommend being more specific about the studies being conducted, specifying the industry or type of company of the finding. The implications or evaluation could differ significantly between industries, and this should be assessable by the reader. Regarding hypotheses 2 and 3, the title talks about a “buffering effect” and the hypothesis mentions a “negative moderation”. I understand that a buffering effect is a type of moderation, but I recommend homogenizing the concepts in both the title and hypotheses.

A(s): We have modified the paragraph following the reviewer's indications. Regarding hypotheses 2 and 3, and the title that talks about a "buffer effect", we have homogenized the concepts by changing the title.

R1: Material and Methods. I recommend the authors in section 3.1 to add the country where the survey was conducted, or if it was applied worldwide (this is not clear), and the point in time when the data were collected.

A(s): We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback, and we thank him/her for indicating the ways to improve our manuscript. We have added in section 3.1 the country and the time of data collection: “the study was conducted in Italy”. “Data collection was carried out via an on-line survey in 2023”.

R1: Additionally, I recommend incorporating a table with demographic data. I'm not sure if the instrument contained the question, but it would be interesting to know more information about the industry and job position. For this, incorporate these control variables in the table mentioned previously.

A(s): Thanks to the reviewer for the recommendation. We now include more information about the participants' demographic, including job positions, employment sectors, and the frequency of each category considered in the study, in the following table (included in the text).

We also include the job position and employment sector in the correlation matrix and the hierarchical regression analysis. We performed the analysis with the variables that were further included.

Table 1. Frequency of Variables Categories (N = 301)

R1: Regarding the measurement scales, please mention in which contexts the original scales were applied.

A(s): Thanks for the suggestion. We have gone through the text of the measurement section and added as follows:

The original version of the Prodanova and Kocarev scale was utilized in previous studies, encompassing both managers and employees engaged in home work across different countries.

The original Mascagna’s scale was used among Italian employees working at home.

The Italian eight-items version of the Perceived Organizational Support scale (POS) [114] was used in previous research in private and public sectors across different countries.

R1: Finally, in my opinion, the best way to evaluate the proposed hypotheses is through a structural equation modeling approach (since the model primarily incorporates latent variables). I believe the authors could complement this study by showing the moderating effects in the proposed model (fig 1) with a variance-based structural equation modeling PLS SEM due to the sample characteristics. Showing first an analysis of reliability and validity of the scales, along with discriminant validity analysis. To then evaluate the structural model with the proposed hypotheses. It is a decision the authors must make.

In the case of maintaining the current form, it is necessary to present more background on the reliability and validity of the scales, as well as discriminant validity. In addition to clearly showing the readers the specification of the models.

A(s): We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions and that he/she calling attention to methodological questions. We have considered how to analyze the data and the two options proposed by the reviewer. We prefer to maintain the current form and, as the reviewer proposes, present more background on the reliability and validity of the scale as well as discriminant validity, including the measurement model. Given the relatively limited sample, the complexity of the model, composed of only four variables, and the deflation of the fit indices due to the interaction effects, this seems an adequate methodological choice.

We now report in the data analysis section:

Further, we examined the measurement model, and both convergent and discriminant validity by analyzing the composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted values (AVE) of each construct within the measurement model. CR values higher than 0.7 [115] and AVE values greater than 0.5 [116] indicate acceptable reliability, while root values of the AVE exceeding the correlation between other constructs denote adequate discriminant validity [117]. Additionally, we evaluated the reliability of the scale under consideration by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha. A value greater than 0.80 [118] indicates good reliability.

We have included in the “Hypothesis and Common Bias” section as follows:

The measurement model showed an acceptable fit (χ2 = 174.748 df = 80, p =0.000, χ2/df =3.023; CFI =972; TLI = 963; RMSEA = 0.063; SRMR = 0.051). As shown in Table 3, the average variance extracted values were above 0.50, the composite reliability values were higher than 0.60, and the Cronbach’s Alpha values were higher than 0.8. Further, as reported (in bold) in Table 3, the AVE square was greater than the correlation with the other constructs.

Table 3. Values of Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, (CR) Average Extracted Variance (AVE), and AVE root square (in bold) for Each Construct of the Study and Correlations.

R1: Discussion. The discussion should delve deeper by relating the research findings to prior literature. Endeavor to incorporate, in addition to the implications for the industry, implications for academia and for society.

A(s): We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We made the changes in the manuscript following his/her indications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript presents a valuable contribution to scholarship. There is no doubting the Method, Results, and Conclusion - which are excellent. 

I have to say, though, it was difficult to read at the start. You need to first define what 'smart working' is. Is it an initiative or program? Or is it an assumption about effective work practices? This lack of clarity confused me. It is important to state the obvious upfront.  

Lines 35 to 100 are difficult to read. It is important to keep one idea per sentence. Ideally, sentences should be 20 words or less. Sentences beyond 30 words, incorrect use of commas, and over-explanation made the reading difficult. Importantly, you lost my interest - which will occur if published.   

But I persevered. A different author appeared to the section 'Work tasks Interruptions and their negative effect on performance' as well as the Method, Results, and Conclusion. These sections are clearer and easier to follow. It also abided by this helpful guide: https://www.redwoodink.com/resources/10-tricks-to-reduce-your-word-count-in-academic-writing

Even so, that section needs to separate paragraphs to assist reading ease. There are three main ideas, which should be three standalone paragraphs. It is also important to delete run-on phrases. For examples 'In relation to this topic', 'To elaborate on,' 'Preliminarily,' and 'Upon analyzing the use of smart working,'. The guide explains why.

May I suggest correcting Lines 35 to 100, spacing some paragraphs, and tidying up the suggested edits? Once done, I believe you'll have a finished product to publish. 

Congratulations on this important research.  

See above

Author Response

Dear Editor, Dear Reviewers,

Thank you so much for your March 27th, 2024, email inviting us to respond to the reviewers' comments and review our manuscript titled “Enhancing Productivity at Home: The Role of Smart Work and Organizational Support in the Public Sector” whose proposal we hope will be of some interest for a possible publication in Societies. We very much appreciate the feedback and guidance that the reviewer provided us. As you will see, we have addressed all the comments and suggestions and made substantial changes to the manuscript.

We have also improved the English to make the text more fluent.

We wish to thank you again for your precious help. Detailed descriptions of the changes that have been made appear below. We now hope to have achieved the goal and that the paper can be considered for publication in your journal.

Best regards,

The Authors

Response to Reviewer 2

R2: This manuscript presents a valuable contribution to scholarship. There is no doubting the Method, Results, and Conclusion - which are excellent.

A(s): We thank you very much.

R2: I have to say, though, it was difficult to read at the start. You need to first define what 'smart working' is. Is it an initiative or program? Or is it an assumption about effective work practices? This lack of clarity confused me. It is important to state the obvious upfront.

A(s): Thank you for your suggestion. We agree with the reviewer. As you can see, we have modified both the introduction and the paragraph on the theoretical background, clarifying the concept of Smart working, the sector in which it was explored (the Italian Public Administration), and finally, we have better clarified the objectives of this study.

R2: Lines 35 to 100 are difficult to read. It is important to keep one idea per sentence. Ideally, sentences should be 20 words or less. Sentences beyond 30 words, incorrect use of commas, and over-explanation made the reading difficult. Importantly, you lost my interest - which will occur if published.

A(s): As the reviewer will see, we have modified several parts throughout the manuscript, including the one reported by the reviewer, to try to make it more fluent and readable. We have also improved the English (throughout the text).

R2: But I persevered. A different author appeared to the section 'Work tasks Interruptions and their negative effect on performance' as well as the Method, Results, and Conclusion. These sections are clearer and easier to follow. It also abided by this helpful guide: https://www.redwoodink.com/resources/10-tricks-to-reduce-your-word-count-in-academic-writing.

A(s): Thank you for your suggestion.

R2: Even so, that section needs to separate paragraphs to assist reading ease. There are three main ideas, which should be three standalone paragraphs. It is also important to delete run-on phrases. For examples 'In relation to this topic', 'To elaborate on,' 'Preliminarily,' and 'Upon analyzing the use of smart working,'. The guide explains why.

A(s): Thank you for your suggestion.

R2: May I suggest correcting Lines 35 to 100, spacing some paragraphs, and tidying up the suggested edits? Once done, I believe you'll have a finished product to publish.

A(s): Thank you for your suggestion. We have changed that part of the text.

R2: Congratulations on this important research.

A(s): Thank you so much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I congratulate the authors for the improvements they have made to the manuscript. It is undoubtedly now a more coherent and clear article. I consider the article to be fit for publication.