Exploring the role of human resource development functions on crisis management: The case of Dubai-UAE during Covid-19 crisis

Amir Hamad Salim Binnashira Alketbi; Juan Antonio Jimber del Rio; Alberto Ibáñez Fernández

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0263034

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionOctober 26, 2021
7 Dec 2021 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor PONE-D-21-34065Exploring the role of Human Resource Development functions on Crisis management: the case of Dubai-UAE during Covid-19 crisisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. JUAN ANTONIO Jimber del Río, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 20 Disember 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Rogis Baker, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. 3. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 1 and 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. 4. Please include a copy of Table 4 which you refer to in your text. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This paper examines the role of HRD functions on the effectiveness of crisis management. For the most part, the paper is clearly written, the research idea is interesting, and the research design is impressive in many respects. Although acknowledging these many positives, I do have some major concerns with your theoretical framing and methodology and some minor concerns on trivial issues. I wish you the best with your work moving forward. Major concerns: 1.Insufficient problematization of the research area. As the paper has put in the introduction, since “involve employee welfare as a crucial aspect of crisis management” is critical, HRD could play a significant role in the current crisis for organizations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The authors put a lot of effort into illustrating the importance of studying the relationship between HRD functions and crisis management. Despite that there are “study problem” and “literature gap” sections in the paper, however, the elaboration on what’s the theoretical problems in this area and why your research is urgent is not enough. What have other scholars done on figuring out the role of HRD functions in crisis management? What are the flaws in these studies? What incremental or fundamental contributions the authors could make above and beyond previous wisdom? 2.Underdeveloped hypotheses development. Arguments in the hypotheses development section are generally thin and weak. For instance, in the reasoning for Hypothesis 1, the authors mainly stated the logic in the first sentence (without any citation). Specifically, the authors were literally saying that training is useful in crisis management because training would “train the workforce on how to manage a crisis.” How exactly training works in crisis management due to Covid-19? For the five stages of your dependent variable, which would be affected most by training practice? And the same with every hypothesis else. The authors need a more in-depth reasoning process to develop the hypotheses. 3.Model configuration. As the authors distinguished between different stages of crisis management, why not test them separately in the analysis and get a derived finding from the basic model? I know that may make the model complex, but the results would be interesting if you can find that different HRD functions work at different stages of crisis management. Minor issues: 1.Missing page number in REFERENCES: Abo-Murad, M., Abdullah, A. K., & Jamil, R. (2019). Effect of the Organisational Culture on Crisis Management in Hotel Industry: A Qualitative Exploration. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(2). Otoo, F. N. K., & Mishra, M. (2018). Measuring the impact of human resource development (HRD) practices on employee performance in small and medium scale enterprises. European Journal of Training and Development. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2017-0061 Vardarlıer, P. (2016). Strategic approach to human resources management during crisis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.057 2.Fonts are not unified. 3.Some period (s) were missing. Such as “This is because no firm is immune to the requirement for processes that help to obtain and maintain its capabilities for renewal and stability (Armitage, 2018)” I hope you find my comments useful. Good luck with your research! Reviewer #2: Appreciating your work, please find hereunder some comments: 1. The overall format of the article does not follow PLOS guidelines, for instance line numbers and headings that make it difficult to give feedback. Additionally, it appears that it follows a format for a research proposal than an a research communication manuscript. N.B. While the English is readable, I would also suggest to have the overall grammatical flow reviewed by a professional in that regard. 2. Abstract lacks a background segment; as it stands, it is a summary of the methods and results. Also, HRD should only be abbreviated after first being mentioned in full capacity. 3. Consider moving third paragraph of the introduction to second to last as the flow correlates more there. 4. Consider moving last paragraph of the study problem to a separate conclusion segment. 5. Suggest to summarize aim and objectives, along with those mentioned in the introduction, into one paragraph that ties up the overall flow of the introduction segment. 6. Suggest to remove literature review as a separate segment and summarize the contents to fit into the introduction segment. 7. Suggest to broaden the discussion segment to include comparative analysis of other studies, such as those mentioned in the literature review. Matter of fact, it would make the most sense to condense the literature review to narrow down its contents to those that further strengthen the introduction and move a bulk of the literature review contents to the discussion segment for a comparative narration and analysis. 8. Suggest to have a separate conclusion and discussion segment. 9. Can the authors provide their questionnaire in a separate file? 10. Can the authors cite the legal framework/IRB protocol that waived consent in this case? I am assuming consent was waived as there is no mention of consent in the manuscript. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Manuscript Number PONE-D-21-34065 opinion.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263034.r001
Revision 1
4 Jan 2022 Author Response Reviewer 1: 1. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 2 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Figure 2 is referred in the text. 2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Tables 1 and 2 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table. Tables 1 and 2 are referred in the text. 3. Please include a copy of Table 4 which you refer to in your text. Table 4 is included in the text. Major concerns: 1.Insufficient problematization of the research area. As the paper has put in the introduction, since “involve employee welfare as a crucial aspect of crisis management” is critical, HRD could play a significant role in the current crisis for organizations due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The authors put a lot of effort into illustrating the importance of studying the relationship between HRD functions and crisis management. Despite that there are “study problem” and “literature gap” sections in the paper, however, the elaboration on what’s the theoretical problems in this area and why your research is urgent is not enough. What have other scholars done on figuring out the role of HRD functions in crisis management? What are the flaws in these studies? What incremental or fundamental contributions the authors could make above and beyond previous wisdom? Include in literature review some more references related specifically to the crisis management, just 1 or 2 will be enough. 2.Underdeveloped hypotheses development. Arguments in the hypotheses development section are generally thin and weak. For instance, in the reasoning for Hypothesis 1, the authors mainly stated the logic in the first sentence (without any citation). Specifically, the authors were literally saying that training is useful in crisis management because training would “train the workforce on how to manage a crisis.” How exactly training works in crisis management due to Covid-19? For the five stages of your dependent variable, which would be affected most by training practice? And the same with every hypothesis else. The authors need a more in-depth reasoning process to develop the hypotheses. 3.Model configuration. As the authors distinguished between different stages of crisis management, why not test them separately in the analysis and get a derived finding from the basic model? I know that may make the model complex, but the results would be interesting if you can find that different HRD functions work at different stages of crisis management. Thank you for the suggestion, this will be addressed in the follow up article. Minor issues: 1.Missing page number in REFERENCES: Abo-Murad, M., Abdullah, A. K., & Jamil, R. (2019). Effect of the Organisational Culture on Crisis Management in Hotel Industry: A Qualitative Exploration. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(2). Otoo, F. N. K., & Mishra, M. (2018). Measuring the impact of human resource development (HRD) practices on employee performance in small and medium scale enterprises. European Journal of Training and Development.https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2017-0061 Vardarlıer, P. (2016). Strategic approach to human resources management during crisis. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 235(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.11.057 2.Fonts are not unified. 3.Some period (s) were missing. Such as “This is because no firm is immune to the requirement for processes that help to obtain and maintain its capabilities for renewal and stability (Armitage, 2018)” The page number in references has been included along with the rest of the minor issues. Reviewer #2: Appreciating your work, please find hereunder some comments: 1. The overall format of the article does not follow PLOS guidelines, for instance line numbers and headings that make it difficult to give feedback. Additionally, it appears that it follows a format for a research proposal than an a research communication manuscript. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Thank you for your appreciation, we have reviewed the format of the article following the author's guide N.B. While the English is readable, I would also suggest to have the overall grammatical flow reviewed by a professional in that regard. The grammar has been reviewed to improve the reading flow. 2. Abstract lacks a background segment; as it stands, it is a summary of the methods and results. Also, HRD should only be abbreviated after first being mentioned in full capacity. The abstract has included the background segment and HDR has been mentioned in full capacity. 3. Consider moving third paragraph of the introduction to second to last as the flow correlates more there. The third paragraph has been moved in order to better correlate with the text flow. 4. Consider moving last paragraph of the study problem to a separate conclusion segment. The last paragraph of the study problem has been moved to the newly incorporated conclusion section. 5. Suggest to summarize aim and objectives, along with those mentioned in the introduction, into one paragraph that ties up the overall flow of the introduction segment. The aim and objectives of the study have been summarized to improve the overall flow of the introduction. 6. Suggest to remove literature review as a separate segment and summarize the contents to fit into the introduction segment. The literature review has been summarized to fin into the introduction segment. 7. Suggest to broaden the discussion segment to include comparative analysis of other studies, such as those mentioned in the literature review. Matter of fact, it would make the most sense to condense the literature review to narrow down its contents to those that further strengthen the introduction and move a bulk of the literature review contents to the discussion segment for a comparative narration and analysis. The discussion segment has been broaden, including comparative analysis of other studies and parts of the literature research have been reorganized in the discussion section. 8. Suggest to have a separate conclusion and discussion segment. A separate conclusion section has been created. 9. Can the authors provide their questionnaire in a separate file? The questionnaire is provided in a separate file. 10. Can the authors cite the legal framework/IRB protocol that waived consent in this case? I am assuming consent was waived as there is no mention of consent in the manuscript. The consent form is included within the documentation. Reviewer 3: Review Comments to the Author (min 200 characters) see the attachment. ("As the result of the effect of HRD has been proved, it recognizes which dimensions of the crisis management plan should solve and what possible ways to respond. Different levels of values and the uniqueness of jobs may theoretically influence how HRD responds to crisis management (Garavan, 2007). The results prove that Values and Uniqueness do not affect CM mean that upon an increase of those factors, crisis management effectiveness should can be increased. It is the value for the research to explore the impact of certain HRD functions on the effectiveness of crisis management.") Thank you for your appreciation, the following paragraphs have been included in the conclusions: Training has a positive and significant influence on crisis management. In other words, with an increase in employee training, there is better crisis management. Leadership positively and significantly influences crisis management. That is, if the leaders of the organization carry out their task in a way that is respected and the employees follow their guidelines willingly, it leads to better crisis management. Organizational strategy positively and significantly influences better crisis management. That is, if the organizational management is well defined, it is clearly transmitted to the employees, it generates good crisis management. The organizational structure does not significantly influence crisis management. Organizational culture positively and significantly influences crisis management. In other words, a well-defined culture, consolidated among employees and well transmitted, produces better crisis management. Values and uniqueness of work do not significantly influence crisis management Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Answers reviewers comments.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263034.r002
11 Jan 2022 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor Exploring the role of Human Resource Development functions on Crisis management: the case of Dubai-UAE during Covid-19 crisis PONE-D-21-34065R1 Dear Dr. Jimber del Río, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Rogis Baker, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263034.r003
Formally Accepted
26 Jan 2022 Acceptance Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor PONE-D-21-34065R1 Exploring the role of Human Resource Development functions on Crisis management: the case of Dubai-UAE during Covid-19 crisis Dear Dr. Jimber del Río: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Rogis Baker Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263034.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .