Triggers and Halts of Professional Mobility in Public Companies: A Case Study of the Romanian Forest Administration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors provide information on the topic's relevance. The introduction part seems promising  the great article, but after reading all paper, some amendments could be recommended:

a) The abstract needs explicit academic language.

b) The article's precise aim is missing.

c) The authors seem to have been analyzing previous research on the chosen topic, but more profound insights from earlier studies could still be presented. This issue could be identified deeper while reading the discussion part. The authors describe their research results using sentences, but the research counting and numbers are missing, and discussions with previous research are missing too. 

d) The used method AHP needs meticulous work on interviewees selection process as some experts should be found. Thus, the snowball method for the selection of interviewees is not suitable. It should be very clear how and what interviewee was selected.

e) The conclusions should be connected with the original results of the paper, and citation of other scientific work should not be applied.

Author Response

Thank you very much for objective and consistent recommendations. We tried to address all of them and I wrote in red our answers. Also in red, we highlighted the new paragraphs.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript addresses an interesting issue related to the human resource strategy in the context of forest management challenges, EU programs.

I have a few suggestions to improve the manuscript for publication.

- I suggest that the authors should expand a little bit the introduction (which is also a Literature review) to provide a clearer overview of the research topic, its importance, and its relevance to the field of forest management. This will help readers understand the context and motivation for the study.

- At the end of the Introduction, the other sections (the structure of the paper) could be briefly presented.

- I also recommend a more detailed description of the AHP methodology, including the steps involved and how it was applied in this study. This will help journal’s readers understand the analytical approach used.

- Isn’t the sample size limited ? particularly for the survey conducted between January and March 2023, which only included five questionnaires filled. An increased sample size could enhance the reliability and generalizability of the findings.

- The manuscript mentions that those willing to relocate their families exhibited some inconsistency, as their second option was the status quo rather than the small city where the NFA county office is located. Further exploration and clarification of this inconsistency are possibly needed to better understand the motivations and preferences of relocatees.

- I suggest that the authors could expand the conclusion section to summarize the main findings, emphasize their significance, and suggest practical implications for the development of a human resource strategy in the National Forest Authority. Additionally, propose potential avenues for future research in this area, rather than quote other publications there.

- Please further elaborate on the discussion section by analyzing the underlying reasons for respondents' choices and their implications for human resource strategies. The authors could discuss potential limitations and address alternative interpretations of the results.

I believe it would be interesting to read in this manuscript about the practical implications of the findings for the NFA and other similar organizations, about some specific recommendations, (based on this study's results), for attracting and retaining high-quality professionals within the organization that would enhance the practical value of the research. This would help practitioners and decision-makers in understanding the factors that influence the decision-making process of forest engineers and guide them in developing effective human resource strategies.

 

Please allow me to make a few suggestions for authors’ future research:

The sample primarily consists of forest engineers, with a focus on those who have already been employed by the NFA or have experience in forest districts. This limited representation may restrict the broader applicability of the study's conclusions. For future research, I suggest to include a more diverse range of participants, such as employees from different backgrounds or regions, would enhance the study's validity.

I believe it is important to conduct a more thorough assessment of the risks associated with each alternative. This could involve examining potential challenges, drawbacks, and uncertainties related to job security, career growth, family well-being, and personal development opportunities. For future research, I suggest a comprehensive risk analysis would provide a more balanced view of the decision-making factors.

It would be interesting to discuss and compare alternative decision-making approaches that could have been used in the study:

- consider using qualitative methods such as interviews or focus groups to gather more in-depth insights into the decision-making processes and experiences of forest engineers and NFA employees.

- mixed-methods approach: Combining qualitative interviews or focus groups with quantitative surveys

- conduct a longitudinal study to track the career trajectories and decision-making patterns of forest engineers and NFA employees over time

- use other decision-making methods, such as the Delphi method or the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) or others, to compare and validate the results obtained from the AHP etc.

Author Response

Thank you so much for kind and supportive recommendation. We tried to address all issues you highlighted to us. The answers were typed in red, as well as the new paragraphs inserted in the article body.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors made a significant input in improving the article. As was recommended, the authors added an aim of the research. They described the deeper selection of survey experts. Now the paper has good visualization of the research data and its discussion. I still would recommend changing conclusions because the discussion of research with cited references should be moved to the discussion part of the article. In my sincere opinion, conclusions should be original results of scientific work.

Author Response

I moved the two paragraphs with literature references from conclusions to discussions. I added two new ideas to conclusions section:  1) the risk of spouses’ labor precarization, which is an important reason for being reluctant to displacement. 2) personal contribution to making AHP more user-friendly especially for online surveys, where the platform interface could troublesome for complex assessments to be made by many respondents. This idea was inserted into the text as a technical recommendation, for whatever survey based on AHP.

As usual, what have been changed or moved from one side to another was written in red. Once again, thank you so much for your suggestions.