Abaseen Foundation

The article captures an interesting issue, but it is full of serious flaws and loopholes that need attention. It lacks coherence, consistency, and structure. Reorganize and rephrase the entire article by recomposing most of the paragraphs, improving the language and structure, and removing unnecessary and irrelevant portions. A proper idea flow and logical sequence is required throughout the article. The introduction is full of claims, arguments, and statements that are not supported by literature. Support the information with recent literature. Also, the in-text citation style followed in the literature review needs correction and should be consistent with the one used by the journal. The author reported using a cross-sectional design in the methodology, while in the abstract, they mentioned a descriptive research design. It is also not clear how many cooperatives were involved or chosen for the study. The section 3.4 reports the sample size as 260, but in the abstract and in section 4.1, it is 213 respondents, while the response rate was 170. There is inconsistency that needs clarification and correction. Also, the sample size calculation done by the formula is incorrect. The Likert scale used needs explanation. The results and discussion section does not address all the objectives of the study. Data is interpreted inadequately and lacks comparison with other research studies. The discussion also needs revision to make it clear and more understandable. Conclusions and recommendations need improvement and should be based on the results of the study. The conclusion starts with "employee motivation," but there is no information and data on this aspect in the article. Make this portion result-based and remove irrelevant and unnecessary material to make it more concise and meaningful. The entire article contains only 6 in-text citations, and those are not cited in the references list. However, your references list is about 4 pages, and none of the entries are cited in the text. It puts a very big question mark on the quality of the article as it is not supported by relevant literature.