This manuscript examined how the collective efficacy of nurses affects their self-efficacy, adaptability, and resilience, thereby influencing their occupational commitment and work engagement. I agree that organizations do indeed need to care about the well-being of nurses. I also appreciate the authors' efforts in using a mixed-method approach. However, I do have some concerns. Below I highlight these concerns and provide some suggestions that I hope will assist the authors in developing their paper further.

1. Authors used the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model to develop their research model and hypotheses. However, I am concerned that the current research model does not adequately reflect job demands, which is a critical component of the JD-R framework. While the broader context of nursing shortages and high job pressure is acknowledged, it is important to recognize that, similar to resources, job demands are also subjectively experienced and can vary significantly among individual nurses. Typically, research utilizing the JD-R model examines how resources can be leveraged to cope with job demands. In this respect, the manuscript seems to partially miss the mark as it does not explicitly address the variability and impact of job demands on nurses. To strengthen the study, I would recommend the authors to more directly incorporate and assess the job demands experienced by nurses and explore how these interact with the proposed variables of collective efficacy, self-efficacy, adaptability, and resilience in predicting occupational commitment and work engagement.
2. I find the authors' intention to explore what organizations can do to support the well-being of nurses commendable. However, I am concerned that the manuscript relies solely on collective efficacy to reflect organizational factors. Collective efficacy, as measured by the nurses' confidence in their department, ward, or team's ability to fulfill their nursing roles, seems to emanate more from trust in their colleagues rather than being a direct form of organizational support. This raises the question of whether collective efficacy can truly be considered an organizational resource. The literature suggests that organizational support should encompass structural and procedural aspects such as policies, leadership, and resources that can help nurses manage job demands. Without a clearer delineation of organizational-level support, it remains uncertain what concrete actions organizations can undertake to assist nurses in coping with the substantial job demands they face. I would urge the authors to include additional organizational factors in their research model to provide a more robust analysis of the support mechanisms that can enhance nurse well-being in the face of job demands.
3. I find the structure of presenting all the hypotheses at the beginning of the manuscript somewhat unconventional. It may benefit the flow and clarity of the manuscript if the authors consider retaining the research question in the introduction while moving the hypotheses to later sections. Placing each hypothesis immediately after the corresponding argument for its development could enhance the readers' understanding of the rationale behind each hypothesis and provide a more logical progression of the paper. This approach would align the manuscript more closely with the typical academic structure, where hypotheses are grounded in the theoretical framework and literature review that precedes them, thereby strengthening the overall narrative and argumentation of the research.
4. I recommend that the authors provide a more detailed account of the data analysis procedures. A clear and thorough description of each step taken during the analysis is essential for readers to understand how the results were derived. I must advise the authors to rigorously proofread the manuscript for typographical errors and ensure that the formatting adheres to the journal's guidelines.

I hope my comments are useful in refining this paper. Good luck!