Workplace-Related Socioeconomic Issues Associated with Job Performance and Productivity among Employees with Various Impairments: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully reviewed this manuscript and below is my decision.

- The topic is quite interesting, however, the explanation on the originality of the study is insufficient. This paper, needs to highlight clearly the originality of the study.

-How the articles are selected is well explained. Why Scopus and Web of Science (WOS)?

-References should be checked. References should be checked. There are some in the text that are not in the references.

Overall a well written work. It can be published after corrections.

Author Response

Respected Professor,

Thank You so much for Your time and comments.

I highly appreciate it. 

I am so grateful to You that You found the manuscript quite interesting. I agree with You; it is interesting for me as well. I am a person with a disability (vision disability since birth), and maybe for this reason it is really interesting for me. I like my research area. 

Since yesterday, I have been working on Your comments. I develop the originality of the study and then explain why Scopus and WOS were selected. References also were checked. Thanks again for Your comments. 

Tomorrow I will work on the conclusion according to the comments of Professor (Reviewer 2). I completely agree, it is weak. I must develop it. 

I will be so happy if the manuscript is published. It will be my first baby-paper in my PhD journey. 

When I am free, I plan to write an auto-ethnographic essay based on my own professional experience as a visually disabled employee. I hope this paper will motivate many people.....although being a disabled person, I was a winner in 6 scholarship programs. Thanks God for this.

So sorry Professor. Just want to tell You.

Thank You so much. May God bless You. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The research has analysed publications from a database on the causes of absenteeism and classifies and examines the results.

The novel contribution is in the conclusions of the chosen sample.

It is well written, but there is room for improvement in form and content: form, because the tables of the concept map need to be sharper, the letters are blurred. In substance: because the conclusions expressed could be improved, they seem insufficient.

There is coherence between the evidence and arguments, but I think the conclusions need to be improved.

Author Response

Respected Professor,

Thank You so much for Your time.

I highly value Your comments. I completely agree with You. Conclusion was really weak. 

I develop it. Now it is better than it has been before. 

Thank You, Professor. Be always blessed.