Peer Review Response Prompt Templates

Response to Reviewer Comment 1: We thank the reviewer for raising this important methodological concern. We have now added a discussion of the validation evidence for the Creativity Assessment Scale in remote contexts (see p. 12, lines 8-15). Specifically, Chen et al. (2022) validated this measure with 500 remote workers across three industries, finding comparable factor structure and reliability to in-person samples (α =.89)...

We appreciate the reviewer's attention to the nested structure of our data. We carefully considered multilevel modeling during our analysis planning. However, we elected to use OLS regression for two reasons. First, our intraclass correlation coefficient was quite low (ICC =.02), indicating that only 2% of the variance in our outcome occurred between clusters. Simulation research by Maas and Hox (2005) suggests that with ICC values below.05, ignoring the nested structure introduces minimal bias. Second, with only 15 clusters, we lack sufficient higher-level units for stable variance component estimation in HLM...

Dear Dr. [Editor],

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript 'Understanding Burnout Experiences Among Frontline Healthcare Workers: A Qualitative Study' (MS-2024-0892). We are grateful for the thoughtful feedback from both reviewers, which has substantially strengthened the paper.

The reviewers raised three primary concerns: (1) sample size and saturation, (2) organization of the findings, and (3) the scope of our practical implications. We have addressed each concern as follows:

Regarding sample size, we conducted 10 additional interviews (now N=35 total), reaching theoretical saturation as evidenced by...

Surface request: Clarify theoretical contribution. Underlying concern: The reviewer suspects this is 'helicopter research' that drops a theory into a new setting without advancing understanding of the theory itself. They want to know: Does your study just confirm the theory works in another context, or does it reveal something new about psychological safety as a construct?

Minimal response: Add a paragraph stating what's novel about the gig work context.

Moderate response: Revise the discussion to explicitly state how your findings extend, complicate, or refine psychological safety theory.

Substantial response: Reframe the paper around a theoretical puzzle (e.g. 'How does psychological safety work when there's no stable team?') and position your findings as resolving that puzzle.

Recommendation: Moderate to substantial. The reviewer is signaling your paper might be rejected for lacking contribution. This needs more than cosmetic changes...