The impact of team psychological safety on employee innovative performance a study with communication behavior as a mediator variable

Hao Jin; Yan Peng

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306629

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionDecember 26, 2023
1 May 2024 Decision Letter - Ricardo Limongi, Editor PONE-D-23-42648The effect of psychological safety on innovation performance: communication behaviour as a mediating variablePLOS ONE Dear Dr. jin, 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 Jun 15 2024 11:59PM. 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, Ricardo Limongi 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files." Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition). For example, authors should submit the following data: - The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported; - The values used to build graphs; - The points extracted from images for analysis. Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study. If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories. If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access. 3. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 1 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure [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 Reviewer #3: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: I Don't Know Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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: No Reviewer #3: No ****** 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: Yes Reviewer #3: Yes ****** 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: Abstract The research problem, objectives, and significance of your study was clearly stated. A brief literature review on the main concepts of team psychological safety and innovation performance was also provided. However, there are some grammatical and punctuation errors in the introduction, such as "fully understoodAndersson". You should proofread your abstract carefully and correct these mistakes. Literature Review The literature review is comprehensive and well-structured, covering relevant studies on team psychological safety, communication behavior, and innovation performance. the review also effectively highlights the gaps in existing research and justifies the need for the current study. Under 2.1 The relationship between team psychological safety and employee innovative performance: "In past research, scholars have begun to focus on the relationship between team psychological safety and employee innovation performance. However, there is still a certain research gap in terms of how specific dimensions of team psychological safety affect innovation performance and the interrelationship between them." These emphatic statement(s) above must be referenced However, I also think that it would be great if the two sections (Introduction and Literature Review) could be merged, to form one section. Research Methods The methodology section provides detailed information on the sample selection, data collection procedures, and scale design, enhancing the transparency and replicability of the study. Rigorous statistical analysis methods, including structural equation modeling and reliability testing, are appropriately described. I suggest that the information about the ethical approval and consent procedures of the study could be also be included. The study; "The effect of psychological safety on innovation performance: communication behaviour as a mediating variable" presents a well-structured study focusing on an important topic in organizational psychology, with clear objectives, a thorough literature review, robust methodology, and sound statistical analysis. The findings contribute to understanding the intricate relationship between team psychological safety, communication behavior, and employee innovation performance. Reviewer #2: After an initial assessment, I do not consider your paper to meet the journal’s criteria for publication. I have particular concerns about the lack of a clear research question; the robustness of the methods and analysis; the soundness and basis of the conclusions; the contribution to the literature; and the clarity of the narrative and expression. I am not confident that the issues identified could be resolved with even major revisions. Reviewer #3: Strengths of the Manuscript 1. Empirical Rigor: The manuscript employs structural equation modeling, a robust statistical technique, which provides a comprehensive analysis of the complex relationships between psychological safety, communication behavior, and innovation performance. This approach adds significant empirical strength to the study. 2. Innovative Mediating Variable: Introducing communication behavior as a mediating variable is a notable strength. It enriches the discourse on psychological safety's role in innovation, highlighting the nuanced pathways through which team dynamics affect performance outcomes. 3. Comprehensive Data Collection: The collection of 580 valid samples from high-tech enterprises across multiple major cities enhances the generalizability of the findings. This large and diverse sample size lends credibility and robustness to the study's conclusions. 4. Multidimensional Analysis: The manuscript successfully identifies and elaborates on multiple dimensions of psychological safety—team collaboration and understanding, information sharing, and give-and-take balance. This multidimensional approach allows for a deeper understanding of the constructs at play. 5. Practical Implications: The study provides specific management strategies to maximize employee innovation performance, making it a theoretical contribution and a practical guide for business managers looking to foster a conducive environment for innovation. Weaknesses of the Manuscript 1. Theoretical Contributions: The manuscript tends to rely heavily on existing theories and models rather than offering substantial new theoretical insights or frameworks. This might limit its appeal to academic audiences seeking innovative theoretical contributions. 2. Literature Integration: The discussion sometimes needs to fully integrate and contrast its findings with the broader body of existing research. A more thorough comparison with other studies could strengthen the manuscript's positioning within the current scientific debate. 3. Depth of Mediating Analysis: While introducing communication behavior as a mediator is a strength, the analysis could benefit from a deeper exploration of why and how this mediation occurs. Providing more detailed psychological or organizational behavior theories could enrich the explanation. 4. Operational Definitions: Some constructs, particularly 'team give-and-take balance,' could be better operationalized. Clarifying how these terms are measured and their relevance to psychological safety could improve the manuscript's clarity and impact. 5. Demographic Considerations: The manuscript mentions the demographic breakdown of the sample but does not explore how demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, educational background) might influence the relationships studied. This oversight might need to be clarified in the data. 6. Methodological Assumptions: The reliance on self-reported data through questionnaires raises concerns about bias, such as social desirability or respondent fatigue. Although the manuscript addresses common method variance, it could further discuss these limitations and their potential impact on the findings. 7. Data Analysis Transparency: More transparency in the statistical analysis, particularly in handling the structural equation modeling, would bolster the manuscript's credibility. Detailed descriptions of model fit indices, assumption checks, and validation measures would be beneficial. 8. Cross-Cultural Validity: Given that the study is conducted within high-tech enterprises in specific geographic locations, the generalizability of the findings to other cultural contexts or industries could be clearer. Discussing the cross-cultural applicability of the results could enhance the manuscript's relevance. 9. Recommendations for Practice: While the manuscript offers practical advice for managers, these recommendations could be expanded to include specific, actionable strategies or case study examples to illustrate the successful implementation of the proposed ideas. 10. Future Research Directions: The manuscript could more explicitly outline areas for future research, such as longitudinal studies to track changes over time or experimental designs to test causality. This would not only enhance the manuscript but also guide subsequent research efforts. Suggestions for Improvement - Enhancing the theoretical framework by integrating additional perspectives or proposing a new model based on the findings could provide a stronger theoretical contribution. - Expanding the literature review to include a broader range of studies and more critically contrasting them with the current findings. - Providing clearer operational definitions and more detailed explanations of the constructs and their interrelations. - Incorporating demographic analyses to explore the influence of these variables on the main study relationships. - Discuss methodological limitations more thoroughly and suggest ways to mitigate potential biases. ****** 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: Yes: Andreas Ndapewa Frans Reviewer #2: Yes: Aidin Salamzadeh Reviewer #3: 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.r001
Revision 1
16 Jun 2024 Author Response Response to reviewers In response to the three questions posed by the editor, here are possible answers: 1. Concerning compliance with PLOS ONE style requirements and file naming requirements: Our file naming also follows journal guidelines to ensure clarity and consistency. 2. On the submission of data: We understand that we are not required to submit the entire dataset if only a portion of the data is used in the reporting study. We have selected data for submission that are directly relevant to the findings of the study. 3. With regard to the reference to figure 1 in the text: We thank the editorial team for their guidance and have made the necessary adjustments to the manuscript in accordance with PLOS ONE submission requirements. We are confident that these adjustments will aid in the review process and enable us to present our research more clearly to the academic community. Comments to the author 1. Technical soundness and data to support conclusions Our study design was technically sound and rigorous experimental manipulations were performed. We ensured that the experiments had appropriate control groups, sufficient number of replications and sample size. All conclusions are based on the data presented and have been carefully analysed. We believe that the data strongly support our research hypotheses and conclusions. 2. Rigour of statistical analyses: Yes, we have carried out appropriate and rigorous statistical analyses. We have used advanced statistical methods to process the data and ensured that the analysis process has followed the standards recognised by the scientific community. All analyses were conducted by professional statisticians to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results. 3. Provision of basic data In accordance with the PLOS data policy, we have provided the underlying data for all study results. These data include, but are not limited to, the data points behind the mean, median, and variance measures. We have provided these data as supporting information for the manuscript and deposited them in a public repository where necessary. Restrictions on any data sharing, such as participant privacy or use of third-party data, have been described in our data availability statement. 4. English writing and clarity: Our manuscripts are written in standard English and have been thoroughly language proofread and edited for clarity and comprehensibility prior to submission. We have corrected any typographical or grammatical errors to meet PLOS ONE's language requirements. 5. Comments to the author: Reviewer comments are critical to improving the quality of the paper and adapting it to the journal's publication standards. Below are the responses to each reviewer's comments and suggestions for improvement: Reviewer #1's response and suggestions for improvement: 1. Grammatical and punctuation errors: - We thank the reviewers for pointing out grammatical and punctuation errors in the abstracts. We will thoroughly proofread the abstracts to ensure that all text is accurate. 2. Introduction and literature review combined: - We understand the reviewers' suggestion and will consider combining the introduction and literature review into a more coherent section to improve the flow and clarity of the paper. 3. Ethical approval and consent procedures in research methodology: - We agree with the reviewers' suggestion to add information about the ethical approval and consent process of the study in the methodology section to enhance the transparency of the study. ### Reviewer #2 responses and suggestions for improvement: 1. Robustness of research questions, methods and analyses: - We will revisit the research questions to ensure that they are clear and specific. At the same time, we will conduct a further review of the methodology and analyses to enhance their robustness. 2. Reasonableness and basis for conclusions: - We will ensure that conclusions are based on adequate data analysis and provide a clear rationale. 3. Contribution to the literature: - We will explore in more depth the contribution of this study to the existing literature and how it fills the gaps in existing research in the discussion section. 4. Clarity of narrative and expression: - We review the entire paper for language and presentation to ensure that the narrative is clear and logical. ### Reviewer #3 responses and suggestions for improvement: 1. Theoretical contributions: - We thank the reviewers for their recognition. We will endeavour to present new insights or models within the theoretical framework to enhance the theoretical contribution of the paper. 2. Integration of literature: - We will broaden the scope of the literature review to more critically compare current findings with other studies to strengthen the paper's position in the academic debate. 3. Depth of brokering analysis: - We will provide more detailed theoretical support by exploring in greater depth why and how communication behaviour acts as a mediating variable. 4. Operational definitions: - We will provide clearer operational definitions, especially for key concepts such as the "team give-and-take balance" and their relevance to psychological safety. 5. Demographic considerations: - We will explore how demographic variables affect research relationships and consider these factors in data analysis. 6. Methodological assumptions: - We will discuss the limitations of relying on self-reported data and suggest ways to mitigate potential bias. 7. Transparency in data analysis: - We will provide a more detailed description of the statistical analyses, including model fit indices and hypothesis checking. 8. Cross-cultural effectiveness: - We will discuss the cross-cultural applicability of the findings and consider their generalisability in different cultural contexts. 9. Recommendations for practice: - We will expand the Practice Recommendations section to include specific operational strategies or case study examples. 10. Directions for future research: - We will outline areas for future research more clearly in the discussion section to provide guidance for subsequent research. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.r002
21 Jun 2024 Decision Letter - Ricardo Limongi, Editor The Impact of Team Psychological Safety on Employee Innovative Performance A Study with Communication Behavior as a Mediator Variable PONE-D-23-42648R1 Dear Dr. jin, 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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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, Ricardo Limongi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.r003
Formally Accepted
15 Jul 2024 Acceptance Letter - Ricardo Limongi, Editor PONE-D-23-42648R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Peng, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, 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 customercare@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 Professor Ricardo Limongi Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306629.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 .