The Impact of Firefighters’ Emotional Labor on Job Performance: The Moderating Effects of Transactional and Transformational Leadership
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reviewer Comments:
After reading your manuscript, I am interested in your research on the relationship between firefighters’ two types of emotional labor and job performance, as well as the moderating role of transactional and transformational leadership. This describes a study that aimed to propose six hypotheses by applying the Conservation of Resources Theory and the Job Demands-Resources Theory, and uses hierarchical multiple regression models for data analysis, providing some important insights for practice. This research is very meaningful and intriguing. However, I still have some questions and suggestions about this paper as follows:
(1) In the Findings section, the paper does not clearly validate and explain the six hypotheses proposed. It is suggested to provide explanations similar to those given for Hypotheses 5 and 6.
(2) It is recommended that the logical flow of the article be further enhanced. For example, the sentence “Hypothesis 5 was rejected…” at line 527 should be swapped with the following paragraph “Figures 3 and 4 illustrate how the effects…”. Explaining Figures 3 and 4 before analyzing the role of transformational leadership is more logical and helpful for the reader’s comprehension.
(3) At line 450, does “rank” refer to “Job grade” in the Table 3 ? If so, it is recommended to make the necessary revisions to the related issues. If not, please provide an explanation.
(4) It is recommended to further refine the English expression.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The copy is generally grammatically correct, but there are some inconsistencies in language expression that could be optimized.
(1) Revise ambiguous or awkward phrasing for clarity.
(2) Conduct a thorough grammatical review to ensure consistency in tense, punctuation, and terminology.
(3) Provide more context and break down long awkward sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Line 70 to 71. " The study specifically identifies transactional and transformational leadership as key moderating factors." However, the following text does not clearly define what transactional leadership and transformational leadership are? Suggest adding this section to enrich the introduction.
2. Line 187 to 189. Hypothesis 1. Surface acting is positively related to job performance; Hypothesis 2. Deep acting is negatively related to job performance. However, the previous text expressed that surface acting negatively affected perceived work performance, whereas deep acting positively influenced it. Why does the author present an argument opposite to that of previous researchers? What is the basis for presenting these two arguments?
3. Line 301 to 305. The paper further proposes four hypotheses. Is there a connection between these assumptions?
4. Line 319 to 322, The paper mentioned that the survey data was collected from firefighters in Gyeonggi Province, the most populous province in South Korea. If the data is only obtained from firefighters in one province, is its result representative?
5. Line 334 to 336. “The survey was conducted via email from April 6th to April 17th, 2020”. The author should provide the total number of emails and necessary evidence during the investigation process, such as email screenshots, to improve the authenticity and reliability of the data.
6. Line 348 to 351. What is the basis for the author's four questions to the respondents? Is it representative? How should the respondent answer? These papers did not mention it.
7. Line 367 to 381. The author used three items to measure transactional leadership and constructed five items to measure transformational leadership. Can these items truly measure them effectively? The author needs to provide the basis for setting these projects to improve the effectiveness of the results.
8. The paper did not provide a summary of the entire text or a concise conclusion at the end. Suggest adding.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
