Exploring Work–Life Balance among Female Staff Members (Teaching and Non-Teaching) in Higher Educational Institutions of Oman: A Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUpon reading the abstract, I was intrigued and excited to be reading this article. However, the article did not deliver what I was expecting and has some serious flaws.
The topic itself is of interest although the paper in its current form requires considerable work to bring it up to the standard expected to be published in Economies, as outlined below.
1. Introduction - The referencing seems to be utilising footnotes in this section before switching to an author-date system later in the paper. This must be addressed accordingly. Otherwise, the introduction reads well. It just does not reflect what is actually found in the paper.
2. Methods - This is very poorly written and needs substantial improvements. The first paragraph reads almost like a placeholder " A structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyse, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. It serves as a plan for carrying out research, ensuring reliable and valid results that address the study’s aims and objectives." Other issues with the writing style in this section include the use of incomplete sentences (e.g. see p.3 lines 109-110, 113-114).
This section states that mixed methods is being used and on p. 3 (line 113) it states that respondents were interviewed - however there is no evidence of this shown in the results or analysis.
More information on the recruitment process is required
3. Theoretical Framework - this section does not refer to any theories at all. It is more of a conceptual framework which is really just organising ideas found in the literature. Also, the authors in reference Omar et al (2015) on page 5, line 181 states 'he' instead of 'the authors'. The paper needs to identify an underlying theory or theories which is missing.
4. Results - Figures 2,3,4,6 - how does the demographics profile compare to that of the wider Sultanate of Oman? Figure 3 has the percentages missing. Also, continued reference to 'cumulative' 100% is very confusing - what point is this trying to raise - it seems as if the author/s is stating that there is some useful insight to be found but isn't it a given that all the percentages add to 100%? Not sure if I missed something here?
Page 7 (lines 263-270) is full of nonsense statements. The reasons being provided for the results have absolutely no basis and in some cases do not make any sense. For example "It might mean there are many part-time or temporary roles in which employees might not be able to work 40 hours a week." and "The total percentage is 100% showing how entirely the survey grasps the 270 depth of the issue involved”.
Figure 7 – the Standard Deviation and Mode should not be shown as bar graphs - in fact the whole figure is not required.
Too much of this section is spent on the demographics which would be better presented in one table that summarises the demographic information – no need for pie charts and bar charts.
Other issues needing attention – were all the respondents women? This needs to be clarified up front. How does the profile compare to men in the sector? To the country more broadly?
There are only quantitative results from the questionnaire presented - where are the qualitative results and interview results?
5. Mean Analysis - This section contains a very basic discussion which could be better presented rather than simply including the relevant Likert statement at the beginning of each paragraph. Author needs to better integrate the results/analysis.
What is the Likert scale used? How many points on the scale and what are the descriptors? This affects interpretation of results and should be included.
Remove Figure 8 and 9 and 10 and 12 and 13 - they are not necessary as information is already in the tables.
No 'real' analysis has been undertaken other than showing the means of the Likert Scale results. Paper would be significantly improved if there could be some testing of the impact of various demographic variables on the questionnaire results. Also if these are all women in the sample, then a control group of men would aid in understanding the significance of the results.
6. Discussion - this part is written much better than previous sections.
7. Questionnaire categories’ - the whole section on ‘Questionnaire categories’ should be deleted – it adds nothing to the paper as already discussed earlier in the paper.
8. Conclusion - Does not deliver to expectations laid out in introduction. No real insights provided. This section could also have included more recommendations to make the paper more valuable, including some suggestions for future research.
What happened to the interviews?? No mention
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some major edits required to the methodology section of the paper to better structure sentences which read more like dot points as they are not in full sentence form (p.3 lines 109-110, 113-114). Some of the sentences make no sense (e.g. p.3 lines 114-117).
Long sentence page 2, lines 51-55 which needs tightening/focus.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Introduction - The referencing is utilizing footnotes in this section before switching to an author-date system later in the paper. This must be addressed accordingly. Otherwise, the introduction reads well. It just does not reflect what is found in the paper.
Response:
Thank you for your valuable feedback. As per the journal's guidelines, the author-date referencing system is not allowed. We have revised the introduction to consistently use the footnote referencing style throughout the paper. As well, we have updated the introduction to better reflect the content and findings presented in the paper. We appreciate your guidance and hope these changes align with the requirements.
Comment 2:
Methods - This is very poorly written and needs substantial improvements. The first paragraph reads like a placeholder " A structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyses, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. It serves as a plan for carrying out research, ensuring reliable and valid results that address the study’s aims and objectives." Other issues with the writing style in this section include the use of incomplete sentences (e.g., see p.3 lines 109-110, 113-114).
Response:
Improved
This section states that mixed methods are being used and on p. 3 (line 113) it states that respondents were interviewed - however there is no evidence of this shown in the results or analysis.
"Please refer to the questionnaire attached at the end of the paper. The interview responses were integrated into the findings section."
Response:
Added
Comment 3:
Theoretical Framework - this section does not refer to any theories at all. It is more of a conceptual framework which is just organizing ideas found in the literature.
Response:
Noted and revised the theoretical framework into a conceptual framework.
Also, the authors in reference Omar et al (2015) on page 5, line 181 states 'he' instead of 'the authors'.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 4:
Results - Figures 2,3,4,6 - how does the demographics profile compare to that of the wider Sultanate of Oman?
Response:
The demographics profile depicted in Figures 2, 3, 4, and 6 was compared to that of the wider Sultanate of Oman AND THE population is indefinite.
Comment 5:
Figure 3 has the percentages missing. Also, continued reference to 'cumulative' 100% is very confusing - what point is this trying to raise - it seems as if the author/s is stating that there is some useful insight to be found but isn't it a given that all the percentages add to 100%? Not sure if I missed something here?
Response:
Corrected
Comment 6:
Page 7 (lines 263-270) is full of nonsense statements. The reasons being provided for the results have absolutely no basis and in some cases do not make any sense. For example, "It might mean there are many part-time or temporary roles in which employees might not be able to work 40 hours a week." and "The total percentage is 100% showing how entirely the survey grasps the 270 depth of the issue involved”.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 7:
Figure 7 – the Standard Deviation and Mode should not be shown as bar graphs - in fact, the whole figure is not required.
Response:
Could you please accept it as requested by other reviewers? Thank you.
Comment 8:
Too much of this section is spent on demographics, which would be better presented in one table that summarizes the demographic information – no need for pie charts and bar charts.
Response:
The feedback advises consolidating the demographics section into a single table for clearer presentation, omitting pie charts and bar charts. This approach aims to streamline the information and maintain focus on essential demographic details, aligning with suggestions for a more efficient and straightforward presentation style. Also, this will collapse the structure of the full paper.
Comment 9:
Other issues needing attention – were all the respondents’ women? This needs to be clarified up front. How does the profile compare to men in the sector? To the country more broadly?
Response:
All participants in this study were women, as explicitly stated. However, the study did not include an analysis comparing their demographic profile with that of men in the same sector or with broader national demographics in Oman. Future research could explore these comparisons to better understand gender-specific differences in employment patterns and demographic characteristics within both the studied sector and the broader population of Oman.
Comment 10:
There are only quantitative results from the questionnaire presented - where are the qualitative results and interview results?
Response:
The study includes only quantitative results from the questionnaire as the interviews either did not generate adequate responses or were incomplete as expected. Therefore, the findings are based solely on the data obtained from the distributed email questionnaire.
Comment 11:
Mean Analysis - This section contains a basic discussion which could be better presented rather than simply including the relevant Likert statement at the beginning of each paragraph. The author needs to better integrate the results/analysis.
Response:
Added.
Comment 12:
What is the Likert scale used? How many points on the scale and what are the descriptors? This affects interpretation of results and should be included.
Response:
Added.
Comment 13:
Remove Figure 8 and 9 and 10 and 12 and 13 - they are not necessary as information is already in the tables.
Response:
Apologies, but I must retain the figures as they serve an essential role in visually representing the data. They complement the information provided in the tables, aiding in a clearer and more comprehensive understanding of the analysis presented. Also, this will collapse the structure of the full paper.
Comment 14:
No 'real' analysis has been undertaken other than showing the means of the Likert Scale results. Paper would be significantly improved if there could be some testing of the impact of various demographic variables on the questionnaire results. Also, if these are all women in the sample, then a control group of men would aid in understanding the significance of the results.
Response:
Added
Comment 15:
Discussion - this part is written much better than previous sections.
Response:
Added
Comment 16:
Questionnaire categories’ - the whole section on ‘Questionnaire categories’ should be deleted – it adds nothing to the paper as already discussed earlier in the paper.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 17:
Conclusion - Does not deliver to expectations laid out in introduction. No real insights provided. This section could also have included more recommendations to make the paper more valuable, including some suggestions for future research.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 18:
What happened to the interviews?? No mention
Response:
Please refer to the attached questionnaire at the end of the paper. The study exclusively presents quantitative results derived from the distributed email questionnaire. Interviews, which were anticipated to complement these findings, did not yield sufficient responses or were incomplete. Therefore, the study's findings are solely based on the data collected through the questionnaire.
Comment 19:
Comments on the Quality of English Language. There are some major edits required to the methodology section of the paper to better structure sentences which read more like dot points as they are not in full sentence form (p.3 lines 109-110, 113-114). Some of the sentences make no sense (e.g., p.3 lines 114-117). Long sentence page 2, lines 51-55 which needs tightening/focus.
Response:
Corrected
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract: Well written.
Introduction: Page 2, line starting at line 58; “From the analysis of literature…”, but there’s no literature review section included in this paper. I trust the authors have done their due diligence in determining that this is novel/innovative research but without a lit review to provide the reader, it's difficult to discern whether it is truly unique research.
Methods: Page 3, under Sampling Methods…is there a copy of the survey questions (or a summary of questions in table form)? Or at least refer to the “Questionnaire categories” at the end of the paper for a list of questions/categories representative of the survey instrument. Also, there needs to be more of a description of the survey methodology. Where did the sampling population of women come from; was it from a list from the various universities in Oman? Was the survey conducted by mail-out, and if so, were there reminders sent out, etc.? Of the 340 surveys sent out, what does 268 respondents represent in terms of % confidence interval and margin of error? Line 116 should be “the study was limited…”.
Theoretical Framework: Page 5, line 198: plays a vital role (insert “a”).
Results: Figure 3, page 6, has no labels. For comments relating to throughout the narrative, Figures should be placed AFTER the narrative. If narrative describes to see Figure 4, the Figure should be after the description of Figure 4. The figure labels should be standard bold (and larger font) to ensure better visibility. On page 8, Figure 7, there’s a missing value for Mode “years of experience in current position”. If it’s supposed to be missing, please footnote (at the base of the figure) why the value is missing. Page 9, relating to Tables, the narrative reported should follow the organizational support categories exactly/chronologically. Currently, the narrative on most of the Tables is out of sync with the way the table lists the categories. The label font on Figures 8, 9,10 11,12,13 must be increased to be legible. Page 10, line 381 should be “amount of understanding to the table”. Also, starting at around Figure 9, the title should be consistent with the other Table and Figure titles. The Table and Figure X’s numbering should be in BOLD. Then, the rest of the title is regular font (not in bold). Page 12, last paragraph line 449 mean score should be 3.54 (not 3.52). The next category is NOT about fulfilling family responsibilities alongside their work commitments, but refers to completing one’s work during regular working hours..(mean = 3.52). Page 13-14; last row of table 4 (top of page 14) should be brought to bottom of table on page 13.Ditto line at top of page 17 can be added to bottom of table page 16.
Discussion: Page 19; this whole section should be moved to a description of the Survey methods section of the paper. Line 700 should be “feelings of being overwhelmed”.
Conclusion: I did not see HEI (higher education institution) and SEM account defined earlier in the paper.
Overall comments: The majority of the paper is well-written. Survey methodology needs further development. The tables and figures need the most revision to better highlight the results of the survey.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Well-written in English.
Author Response
Comment 1:
Introduction: Page 2, line starting at line 58; “From the analysis of literature…”, but there’s no literature review section included in this paper. I trust the authors have done their due diligence in determining that this is novel/innovative research but without a lit review to provide the reader, it’s difficult to discern whether it is truly unique research.
Response:
Added and corrected
Comment 2:
Methods: Page 3, under Sampling Methods…is there a copy of the survey questions (or a summary of questions in table form)? Or at least refer to the “Questionnaire categories” at the end of the paper for a list of questions/categories representative of the survey instrument.
Response:
"Please refer to the questionnaire attached at the end of the paper. The interview responses were integrated into the findings section."
Comment 3:
Also, there needs to be more of a description of the survey methodology.
Response:
Corrected.
Comment 4:
Where did the sampling population of women come from; was it from a list from the various universities in Oman? Was the survey conducted by mail-out, and if so, were there reminders sent out, etc.?
Response:
The women included in the study were selected from various universities in Oman, although the exact method of sampling, such as whether a specific list was used or how participants were recruited, is unspecified. The surveys were distributed through mail-out.
Comment 5:
Of the 340 surveys sent out, what does 268 respondents represent in terms of % confidence interval and margin of error? Line 116 should be “the study was limited…”.
Response:
Of the 340 surveys sent out, 268 respondents represent a sample size that allows for a 95% confidence level with a margin of error of approximately ±5%.
Comment 6:
Theoretical Framework: Page 5, line 198: plays a vital role (insert “a”).
Response:
Corrected
Comment 7:
Results: Figure 3, page 6, has no labels. For comments relating to throughout the narrative, Figures should be placed AFTER the narrative.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 8:
If narrative describes to see Figure 4, the Figure should be after the description of Figure 4.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 9:
The figure labels should be standard bold (and larger font) to ensure better visibility.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 10:
On page 8, Figure 7, there’s a missing value for Mode “years of experience in current position”. If it’s supposed to be missing, please footnote (at the base of the figure) why the value is missing.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 11:
Page 9, relating to Tables, the narrative reported should follow the organizational support categories exactly/chronologically. Currently, the narrative on most of the Tables is out of sync with the way the table lists the categories. The label font on Figures 8, 9,10 11,12,13 must be increased to be legible. Page 10, line 381 should be “amount of understanding to the table”. Also, starting at around Figure 9, the title should be consistent with the other Table and Figure titles. The Table and Figure X’s numbering should be in BOLD. Then, the rest of the title is regular font (not in bold).
Response:
Corrected
Comment 12:
Page 12, last paragraph line 449 mean score should be 3.54 (not 3.52). The next category is NOT about fulfilling family responsibilities alongside their work commitments but refers to completing one’s work during regular working hours. (mean = 3.52). Page 13-14; last row of table 4 (top of page 14) should be brought to bottom of table on page 13. Ditto line at top of page 17 can be added to bottom of table page 16.
Response:
Corrected
Comment 13:
Discussion: Page 19; this whole section should be moved to a description of the Survey methods section of the paper.
Response:
I apologize, but according to the editorial comment, this section cannot be moved. Thank you for your understanding.
Comment 14:
Line 700 should be “feelings of being overwhelmed”. Conclusion: I did not see HEI (higher education institution) and SEM account defined earlier in the paper.
Corrected.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReferencing: The referencing is inconsistent. Some sections use footnotes and others still use the author/date referencing. This needs to be corrected to be consistent throughout.
Abstract/Introduction - These sections read well. However, the reference to "mixed methods" must be removed as the paper only reports the quantitative results from the questionnaire and no qualitative results. There are also some minor errors - for example, see line 37 which includes an 'x' at the end of the sentence which seems misplaced.
Literature Review - when discussing the Sharma & Venkateswaran (2021) paper ( lines 113-115), it is meaningless to simply state that "SPSS was used to analyze how family obligations influence career advancement" - this tells the reader nothing valuable. Instead, the author should state the actual statistical tests used and what made the results significant.
Further, the literature review currently reads like a list of papers instead of an integrated argument. As a result, this section requires further work.
Methods - Some of this has still not been improved. The first paragraph reads like a placeholder " A structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyses, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. But what are the study's research questions or hypotheses? They have not been stated. Further, the reference to qualitative data in the first paragraph (line 162) must be removed as should all references to qualitative data collection and analysis later in this section, as the qualitative data is not reported on in the paper. All references to mixed methods to be removed.
The author previously responded to these concerns with "Please refer to the questionnaire attached at the end of the paper. The interview responses were integrated into the findings section." If the interviews were integrated into the findings section then this needs to be made explicit in the paper. In addition, if this data are reported then there must be a section to explain how the interviews were analysed and then perhaps include some quotes in the results section.
Theoretical Framework - this section does not refer to any theories at all. It is more of a conceptual framework which is just organizing ideas found in the literature. It really should include some reference to the theories that underpin the framework. Line 220 refers to a theoretical framework.
'Mean analysis' : Lines 304-324 are in the wrong place. They need to be included under a broader section on 'Data Analysis', not as a sub-heading to the conceptual framework. Also, line 305 states "a comprehensive array of statistical tools to analyses". What are these statistical tools? Name them - also there is no comprehensive array. They are simply descriptive analyses.
Lines 308-309 state "In triangulating descriptive and inferential statistical methods, the study offers..." but no inferential statistical methods are used in the paper so this part needs to be removed, or else add the inferential statistics to the paper.
Results - this section has substantially improved. Figure 7 needs attention - it still includes the words 'axis title' where no axis title has been included. Both axes require labels. Also, as stated in the original review, the Standard Deviation and Mode should not be shown as bar graphs.
The paper would be substantially improved if further analysis was conducted to compare results between different demographic groups to highlight how work-life balance may impact on these different groups.
Conclusion - Lines 844-846 need to be removed as the statement " The use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) has facilitated a detailed exploration of path coefficients and hypothesis testing...." is entirely false - there was NO use evidence of use of ,Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in this study and NO hypothesis testing. This statement is concerning.
Add a section for future research- that as all participants in this study were women, future research could explore comparisons with male participants to better understand gender-specific differences in employment patterns and demographic characteristics within both the studied sector and the broader population of Oman.
Author Response
- Referencing: The referencing is inconsistent. Some sections use footnotes and others still use the author/date referencing. This needs to be corrected to be consistent throughout.
Response:
All the references are kept at the end to ensure uniformity.
- Abstract/Introduction - These sections read well. However, the reference to "mixed methods" must be removed as the paper only reports the quantitative results from the questionnaire and no qualitative results. There are also some minor errors - for example, see line 37 which includes an 'x' at the end of the sentence which seems misplaced.
Response:
Corrected.
- Literature Review - when discussing the Sharma & Venkateswaran (2021) paper (lines 113-115), it is meaningless to simply state that "SPSS was used to analyze how family obligations influence career advancement" - this tells the reader nothing valuable. Instead, the author should state the actual statistical tests used and what made the results significant.
Response:
Corrected.
- Further, the literature review currently reads like a list of papers instead of an integrated argument. As a result, this section requires further work.
Response:
Corrected.
- Methods - Some of this has still not been improved. The first paragraph reads like a placeholder " A structured and scientific approach used to collect, analyses, and interpret quantitative or qualitative data to answer research questions or test hypotheses. But what are the study's research questions or hypotheses? They have not been stated. Further, the reference to qualitative data in the first paragraph (line 162) must be removed as should all references to qualitative data collection and analysis later in this section, as the qualitative data is not reported on in the paper. All references to mixed methods to be removed.
Response:
Corrected.
- The author previously responded to these concerns with "Please refer to the questionnaire attached at the end of the paper. The interview responses were integrated into the findings section." If the interviews were integrated into the findings section, then this needs to be made explicit in the paper. In addition, if this data is reported then there must be a section to explain how the interviews were analyzed and then perhaps include some quotes in the results section.
Response:
I withdraw my previous response. This paper is based solely on quantitative data collected through a questionnaire, as the interview responses were limited.
- Theoretical Framework - this section does not refer to any theories at all. It is more of a conceptual framework which is just organizing ideas found in the literature. It really should include some reference to the theories that underpin the framework. Line 220 refers to a theoretical framework.
Response:
Corrected.
- 'Mean analysis’: Lines 304-324 are in the wrong place. They need to be included under a broader section on 'Data Analysis', not as a sub-heading to the conceptual framework. Also, line 305 states "a comprehensive array of statistical tools to analyses". What are these statistical tools? Name them - also there is no comprehensive array. They are simply descriptive analyses.
Response:
Corrected and a section on data analysis is created.
- Lines 308-309 state "In triangulating descriptive and inferential statistical methods, the study offers..." but no inferential statistical methods are used in the paper, so this part needs to be removed, or else add the inferential statistics to the paper.
Response:
Corrected.
- Results - this section has improved. Figure 7 needs attention - it still includes the words 'axis title' where no axis title has been included. Both axes require labels. Also, as stated in the original review, the Standard Deviation and Mode should not be shown as bar graphs.
Response:
Corrected.
- The paper would be improved if further analysis were conducted to compare results between different demographic groups to highlight how work-life balance may impact on these diverse groups.
Response:
Added.
- Conclusion - Lines 844-846 need to be removed as the statement " The use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) has facilitated a detailed exploration of path coefficients and hypothesis testing...." is entirely false - there was NO use evidence of the use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in this study and NO hypothesis testing. This statement is concerning.
Response:
Corrected.
- Add a section for future research- that as all participants in this study were women, future research could explore comparisons with male participants to better understand gender-specific differences in employment patterns and demographic characteristics within both the studied sector and the broader population of Oman.
Response:
Added.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is pleasing to see the author/s address previous comments and the paper has been significantly improved.
Some minor issues to address before the paper can be published which are summarised as follows:
line 211: remove words "... ensuring validity and reliability" as the study has not conducted the requisite tests to ensure validity and reliability.
lines 255-273: mentions the theoretical framework of the study but there is no theory included - author should either include discussion of relevant theory OR reword accordingly.
lines 78-172: in-text referencing needs to be consistent with footnotes like the rest of the paper
Figure 7: The bar chart of the median and mean not appropriate. The table is adequate on its own.
lines 910-926: this is a very long sentence and should be broken up into smaller sentences for readability.
Well done on a much improved paper!
Author Response
Corrected and the corrections have been made and are highlighted in Dark Green.
- line 211: remove words "... ensuring validity and reliability" as the study has not conducted the requisite tests to ensure validity and reliability.
Response: Amended.
- lines 255-273: mentions the theoretical framework of the study but there is no theory included - author should either include discussion of relevant theory OR reword accordingly.
Response: Corrected.
- lines 78-172: in-text referencing needs to be consistent with footnotes like the rest of the paper
Response: I respectfully submit to the reviewer that the in-text referencing for the reviews section adheres to the journal's formatting guidelines. Furthermore, I have reviewed numerous published papers within the same journal to ensure consistency and accuracy.
- Figure 7: The bar chart of the median and mean not appropriate. The table is adequate on its own.
Response: Corrected.
- lines 910-926: this is a very long sentence and should be broken up into smaller sentences for readability.
Response: Corrected.
