Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in the Portuguese Hospitality Industry: A Study on Sociodemographic and Professional Variables
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors01. Title and summary
This paper deals with Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in the Hospitality Industry. However, it focuses on the characteristics of the sector in Portugal. It would be important to mention this in the title in order to situate the context of the study. In addition, some specification of the type of study being carried out or the variables being analysed should be included (e.g. ‘a study on...).
The abstract, on the other hand, does not include a background that sets out the background of the study. It should also specify the main results and present some practical implications.
02. Relevance of the topic
The article addresses a topic of interest and social relevance.
03. Originality of the work
In the field of action contemplated, this is an original topic that has a long way to go in terms of research. However, the authors report that this is the first study to introduce the scale of organisational citizenship behaviours in the hotel industry in Portugal. Previous studies have measured organisational citizenship behaviours (e.g. Freire, C.; Gonçalves, J. The Relationship between Responsible Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Hospitality Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4705. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094705). The authors should justify this claim.
04. Literature review
In the theoretical overview, background information is mentioned, and it has included some scientific production related to the research and the subject of the article. Nevertheless, concepts and definitions are mentioned on several occasions in a confusing and disorganised manner. This leads to uncertainty about the theoretical basis of reference and a lack of clarity in the conceptualisation guiding the article.
05. Article structure and organization
The contents are organised in a logical order, but the use of a classic structure (Introduction, Method, Results and Discussion) is recommended to help the reader's better understanding. On the other hand, the research objectives and hypotheses are not placed in the right context: this makes it difficult for the reader to follow the research needs to be addressed. Finally, the last section should be a discussion section that includes, as a closure to the paper, some brief conclusions.
06. Argumentative capacity
The theoretical framework presents a basis to support the starting assumptions of the research. The argumentation would need to be more clearly organised. Also, in general, the statements need to be supported by a larger number of references to back up the theoretical claims (e.g. see 70-79; 148-152; 153-157; 231-232; 243-246; etc).
07. Writing
The article needs a revision of its wording and writting. The manuscript would benefit from a substantial editing in terms of grammar, syntax, and wording by a native English speaker. In addition, there are typos in the spelling that should be corrected, such as single letters (43), inappropriate parentheses (e.g. 106), lowercase letters (344), mixing of full stops and commas in numerical figures (434-439), etc.
08. Methodological rigor
As this is a correlational study, the variables should not be labelled as dependent and independent, as this leads to confusion about the causality of the results.
It would be interesting to know whether the participants in the study received any rewards for their collaboration. This would address the issue of bias with respect to the sample of workers and their motivation.
Finally, perhaps mediation and moderation analyses could be carried out to clarify whether the variables are otherwise related to each other.
09. Research instruments
The Konovsky and Organ (1996) questionnaire has been used. Validation and reliability studies are carried out. However, it is not clear whether the questionnaire under statistical analysis was previously validated for the Portuguese population by Ribero in 2009.
10. Research results
The results section would benefit from a figure showing the relationships obtained and helping the reader to understand the research findings. On the other hand, the information provided about the sample of participants is repetitive and does not provide any extra information compared to that included in table 1.
11. Discussion
This section has been diluted within the Results and, instead, the Conclusions section has taken over its role. It would be advisable to separate it from the Results section so that it can describe and relate the results of the research to theory and the state of the art.
12. Conclusions
The Conclusions section is too long. It would be advisable to conclude a study with a paragraph or two condensing the main ideas of the work developed, some practical implication of the work and suggestions for future research.
13. Citations
The system used to cite authors does not correspond to the MDPI style. The numbers that are then listed in the reference section must be included in the parentheses. Otherwise they cannot be found.
14. References
References should follow the order of appearance in the text and correspond to the numbers included in the brackets in the body of the article. Only three references are from the last 6 years. It would be advisable to update them. In addition, the number of references is low: the Introduction section would benefit from more scientific support to back up the statements.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our article. We are grateful for the opportunity to reflect on our work and improve it in response to your comments. We believe that incorporating your observations has significantly enhanced the quality of our article. We hope that the revisions we have made meet your expectations.
Best regards.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is relevant to well-being at work and people management. Opportunities for improvement are presented to reinforce the quality, support and discussion of the article presented:
Introduction
• Very old references (2005, 2006 and 2007), especially when investing in people management has grown immensely in recent years.
• The importance of OCB for human resources management is poorly substantiated. They emerge as separate concepts, it is necessary to show their articulation and mutual impacts
Theoretical Framework
• It begins by mentioning the importance of horizontal structures and reinforcing people's commitment to the organization, but throughout the entire long paragraph it does not present any bibliographical references. The authors must scientifically substantiate the statements.
• From line 185, present, in a structured way, the five dimensions of OCB. However, the previous presentation (lines 148-184) appears astray and needs to be improved. Scattered and unclear information regarding its contribution to the understanding of OCB
• In line 243 it indicates that there are several studies that indicate the non-correlation between OCB and the sociodemographic variables of employees. It is important to indicate what they are.
• There is no reflection on the importance of OCB for the effectiveness of HR management, and this association is considered relevant to the point of opening the introduction. It is not clear, then, why it is not explored in the literature review.
• Despite presenting many studies on OCB and its relationship with employee characteristics, nothing is presented about the hotel sector or the context of Portugal. Add framing in these two dimensions.
Materials and Methods
• The hypotheses presented relate only to the global OCB, but must be detailed for the 5 internal dimensions, as shown in the graphic figure presented.
• Make the graphic figure clearer and indicate each hypothesis on the correlation arrows
• Line 436 – replace comma with period (1,146)
Results and Discussion
• The section is called results and Discussion but does not present any discussion. It limits itself to indicating the results but does not discuss what they mean in terms of existing knowledge on the topic. It is a major limitation that needs to be resolved, solidly.
Conclusions
• Does not support the main implications of the topic with scientific solidity and indication of recent and relevant references
• Still without making any relationship between OCB and human resources management
• There is also no reflection on possible specificities of the hotel sector and Portuguese culture
• Research opportunities are vaguely formulated and do not result from the practical work carried out and the results obtained
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have put into reviewing our article. We are grateful for the opportunity to reflect on our work and improve it in response to your comments. We believe that incorporating your observations has significantly enhanced the quality of our article. We hope that the revisions we have made meet your expectations.
Best regards.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been adequately revised.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors incorporated the suggestions for improvement presented into the current version. The current version is more robust from a theoretical and practical point of view and is relevant for understanding OCB in the work context.
