Burnout among Retail Workers in Spain: The Role of Gender, Personality and Psychosocial Risk Factors

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to extend my congratulations on a text that is both well-researched and well-written. The incorporation of statistical analysis and the results of your own analysis is to be commended. I am particularly impressed by the maturity of the statistical approach employed. However, I do have one comment regarding the pattern of relationships between variables (Figure 1). It appears that the interaction between personality and situational factors (psychosocial working conditions) relative to the dependent variable (burnout) has not been considered. These interactions are, in my opinion, as important as interactions involving gender and perhaps even more important. It is likely that the authors have a database to calculate personality x working conditions interactions using, for example, a factorial regression procedure. I urge the authors to publish the data on interaction effects, which were not included in the reviewed article. I recognize that not all of the information can be included in a single text.

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for their comments on our manuscript and their interest in our work.

The graphical representation of all possible relationships between the variables in our study is complex, and based on the comments from the other reviewer, we have ultimately decided to remove Figure 1 from the manuscript.

In Table 6, we have included the interaction effects between personality and working conditions on the three dimensions of burnout.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your paper on the determinants of burnout in the retail context. Below are some comments to improve your paper. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend it for acceptance at present.

1. The title is unclear. It appears that alongside burnout, you aim to explore gender distribution in this work context. However, gender, along with personality and psychosocial factors, serves as a determinant of burnout. Thus, the title requires revision.

2. Abstract: The abstract also requires revision. For instance, it fails to explicitly state the objective of investigating burnout from a gender perspective, despite the first reported result focusing on gender differences. I suggest reorganizing and condensing it. Additionally, provide clearer details on the methodology employed and reduce the emphasis on results.

3. References are inconsistently cited throughout the text (n.d.?).

4. The topic of burnout determinants has been extensively explored across various fields, making the innovative contribution of this study appear weak. Furthermore, the cited literature often comprises older works and repeatedly references the same authors. For instance, the paragraph discussing personality and burnout suffers from this issue.

5. Lack of hypotheses: While the research objective is outlined in line 291, specific hypotheses for each psychosocial factor are absent. Without hypotheses, it remains unclear why subsequent analyses are conducted and what they aim to test. I recommend including explicit hypotheses for each factor, similar to what is done for gender in line 297. Additionally, the theoretical section should present the model to be tested (Figure 1) along with a description of the relationships between variables. Each hypothesis should be grounded in relevant theoretical literature.

6. The figure quality is poor, making it difficult to interpret. Additionally, the arrows lack indications of related hypotheses.

7. The discussion contains redundant information, with discussions and conclusions often repeating each other. Paragraphs need to be succinctly summarized.

8. Practical implications of the study are missing.

Overall, the paper introduces numerous concepts and variables, making it challenging to discern how they are interconnected based on existing literature. The text is lengthy, and the absence of specific hypotheses hinders readers from understanding the analyses and interpreting the results effectively. Substantial revisions are necessary before considering it for publication.

Author Response

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewer for their efforts and relevant comments, which undoubtedly contribute to improving the quality of our manuscript. We agree with all their comments and have made all the changes suggested by the reviewer (marked in red in the new version).

1. The title is unclear. It appears that alongside burnout, you aim to explore gender distribution in this work context. However, gender, along with personality and psychosocial factors, serves as a determinant of burnout. Thus, the title requires revision.

RE: Thank you for this comment. We have changed the title.

2. Abstract: The abstract also requires revision. For instance, it fails to explicitly state the objective of investigating burnout from a gender perspective, despite the first reported result focusing on gender differences. I suggest reorganizing and condensing it. Additionally, provide clearer details on the methodology employed and reduce the emphasis on results.

RE: The abstract has been modified as indicated by the reviewer.

3. References are inconsistently cited throughout the text (n.d.?).

RE: Thank you. This mistake has been resolved.

4. The topic of burnout determinants has been extensively explored across various fields, making the innovative contribution of this study appear weak. Furthermore, the cited literature often comprises older works and repeatedly references the same authors. For instance, the paragraph discussing personality and burnout suffers from this issue.

RE: Following the recommendation of the reviewer, repeated references to older works have been removed from the paragraph when was necessary.

5. Lack of hypotheses: While the research objective is outlined in line 291, specific hypotheses for each psychosocial factor are absent. Without hypotheses, it remains unclear why subsequent analyses are conducted and what they aim to test. I recommend including explicit hypotheses for each factor, similar to what is done for gender in line 297. Additionally, the theoretical section should present the model to be tested (Figure 1) along with a description of the relationships between variables. Each hypothesis should be grounded in relevant theoretical literature.

RE: We have expanded the main hypotheses of the study in lines 296-312.

6. The figure quality is poor, making it difficult to interpret. Additionally, the arrows lack indications of related hypotheses.

RE: Considering that the figure does not provide relevant information, we have decided to remove it.

7. The discussion contains redundant information, with discussions and conclusions often repeating each other. Paragraphs need to be succinctly summarized.

RE: Following the reviewer's comment, we have condensed and clarified the sections dedicated to the discussion, as well as the conclusions.

8. Practical implications of the study are missing.

RE: Practical implications have been included at the end of Discussion.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

Thank you for revising the paper in accordance with my comments. Unfortunately, I believe that these changes were not thorough enough to address my requests. 

First of all, research hypotheses have been formulated in a way that is unspecific and without references that help the reader check whether or not the results have been verified.

The paragraph on results is simply composed of a set of tables, and the results are not explained in a discursive way. In addition, it is not possible to understand whether the hypotheses are verified or not. You also say that you have tested a model but have not. You have not used methodologies such as SEMs that allow us to test a model and, thus, a set of relationships. You have tested many simple cross-sectional associations. The use of the word model is inappropriate.

The practical implications are very brief and superficial. I suggested inserting a specific paragraph to highlight the importance of your study and its implications.

You often cite previous studies (e.g., lines 446-449) without citing the studies you refer to. You need a thorough integration of the literature and related references. 

Limits go before the conclusions that serve as the final part to close and precisely conclude the study. 

 

Your article still needs work before it can be accepted for publication. 

Author Response

Research hypotheses have been formulated in a way that is unspecific and without references that help the reader check whether or not the results have been verified.

RE: Our hypotheses are based on the results obtained from all the previously mentioned and referenced research in the section dedicated to the Introduction. To aid the reader in understanding our results, a precise indication of how each of the hypotheses established has been confirmed has been added in the Results section.

The paragraph on results is simply composed of a set of tables, and the results are not explained in a discursive way. In addition, it is not possible to understand whether the hypotheses are verified or not. You also say that you have tested a model but have not. You have not used methodologies such as SEMs that allow us to test a model and, thus, a set of relationships. You have tested many simple cross-sectional associations. The use of the word model is inappropriate.

RE: Although the usual practice in scientific publications is to elaborate or expound upon the obtained results solely within the Discussion section, in accordance with the reviewer's suggestions, the Results section has been further developed by incorporating an explanation of the findings obtained.

The SEMs method is one of the relationship calculations, and the multiple regression testing (beta, predictor, ,,,) is also a way of relationship calculating. From data calculation, they are the same. However, multiple regression, the backward stepwise, which is the way we are using, is considered much more straightforward than the SEMs (i.e., the exploratory factor analysis and the confirmatory factor analysis). SEMs need two larger samples for the calculations, and more “non-accurate” calculations will produce more results deformity. Multiple regressions, not only SEM, also permit to test a model of relationships between variables, and this methodology has been the foundation of scientific progress long before the emergence of SEMs. Therefore, the authors believe that nothing invalidates the use of the word "model" in our manuscript. However, despite this, and since this word appeared only a couple of times, we have chosen to remove it if this makes the reviewer more comfortable.

The practical implications are very brief and superficial. I suggested inserting a specific paragraph to highlight the importance of your study and its implications.

RE: We have elaborated further on the potential implications of our findings and have consolidated them in Section 5: Conclusions and Implications.

You often cite previous studies (e.g., lines 446-449) without citing the studies you refer to. You need a thorough integration of the literature and related references. 

RE: Although the statement appearing in lines 446-449 refers to something known to any academic familiar with burnout syndrome, and we believe it is unnecessary to reference since it is widely accepted that the healthcare and education sectors are the ones most extensively researched regarding burnout, we have included the citation of Chacón et al (2024). Chacon et al. conducted a meta-analysis revealing that the sectors where burnout has been most analyzed are healthcare and education.

Limits go before the conclusions that serve as the final part to close and precisely conclude the study. 

RE: The limitations have been moved before the conclusions.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

Thank you for responding to my comments. I no longer have any suggestions to report.