Colleagues’ Work Attitudes towards Employees with Disability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has good originality and contributes to a relevant issue in the field. Methods and instruments appear to be adequate.

Some specific notes and suggestions to improve the text:

In line 148, more information about the kind of involved industries is needed.

Furthermore, more details about the specific jobs could be helpful in describing the respondents.  Were they office or production workers, and/or engaged in team working (potentially with colleagues with disabilities)?

Also in lines 194-195, some additional information is needed. How were the workers selected? Have all of the workers of the same companies been contacted? In these cases, how many workers agreed to participate?

Lines 250 and others: some reference numbers in the text have a different format.

Line 282: The sentence "Workers that (who?) experienced disability" is unclear: Is the experience of disability intended "in working colleagues"?

Limitations are correctly exposed at the end of the article.

Another limitation to be cited is the use of a procedure of administration of the instruments based on e-mail communication. Could this method (eventually forced by pandemics) modify the reliability of the instruments and introduce unknown intervenient variables? 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you and the reviewers for your dedicated time reviewing our manuscripts.

We have revised the manuscript considering the suggestions received. This cover letter will address each recommendation and provide our point-by-point responses to the feedback.

Our changes in the text are in red.

In line 148, we added more information about the kind of involved industries is needed and details about the specific jobs.

All of the workers come up of the same companies and 98% of them agree to partecipate

we format the reference number in the text

Line 282: we changed the  sentence "Workers that  experienced disability" 

Reviewer 2 Report

I want to thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. In my humble opinion, the work offers interesting results. However, it would be necessary to make the following comments, which prevent the publication of the manuscript, at least in its current form.

 

Revise and improve the introduction. The topic of his work is current, with numerous recent scientific publications on the subject. However, his manuscript has only 1 citation from 2020, and 3 citations from 2018. It is necessary to improve this aspect, having at least 20% of the citations of documents published in the last 2 years.

The method is not explicit enough. The manuscript should structure the method section with the following subsections: participants, instruments, procedure and data analysis. Include information regarding the bioethics code.

 

Include a section of conclusions, where examples should be given of how this information can be useful for the population and the field of health. The authors must make explicit reference to the practical application of the results obtained. Also, this section should not include citations.

 

 All the best.

Author Response

Dear colleague, We sincerely thank you and the reviewers for your dedicated time reviewing our manuscripts.

We have revised the manuscript considering the suggestions received. This cover letter will address each recommendation and provide our point-by-point responses to the feedback.

Our changes in the text are in red.

We Revise and improve the introduction by inserting recent references from 2021 and 2022.

We revised the method and Included information regarding the ethics code.

Included a section of conclusions.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all, I would like to thank the interest and dedication of the authors, who have tried to respond to all the recommendations. However, the citations in the text are not ordered by order of appearance, nor are they separated with a comma or a hyphen, depending on whether they are different or are included, for example, from 12-24.

It would be advisable to include the information from the bioethics committee in the procedure section.

 

Thanks for your time.

Author Response

Thanks again. As regards your last suggestion, we inserted the information from the bioethics committee in the procedure section, and we changed the citations in the text separating them with a comma. As regards the order, we follow the "Reference List and Citations
Style Guide for MDPI Journals".