The paper tests the relationships between ethical leadership and nurses’ patient-oriented OCB. My comments are presented below along with suggestions for improvement.

Introduction and hypotheses development:
1. While I agree that there is a need to test the relationship between ethical leadership, justice and OCB, I am not convinced why the authors have limited the study to only interactional justice and not included procedural and distributive justice. Proper reasons must be provided for excluding procedural and distributive justices from the study.

1. The study is an individual-level study but the authors use the work ‘climate’. ‘Climate’ word should be used only when testing the relationships at organisation or team level.

Analyses:
3. The authors should present the complete results of analysis in Table 4. Analyses should be performed after including all the control variables.

1. Given that this is a cross-sectional study, authors should perform common-method tests such as Harman one-factor test or common latent factor. Please see Podsakoff et al. (2003). Also, authors must provide values of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR) for all the constructs in the paper. Please see Fornell and Larcker (1981).

2. Given that leadership is a group-level (level 2) construct, the authors may conduct multilevel analyses and test the relationships between leadership, justice climate and group-level OCB.

General comments:
6. The study has some typo errors that need to be corrected. I careful reading of the manuscript is needed.

For example:
a. Everywhere authors write ‘t-stat’ as ‘T-value’. Note ‘t’ in ‘t-stat’ is in lowercase.
b. Page 16, line 27, citation should be Arar, Haj, Abramovitz and Oplatka (2016).
Overall, I feel the study has potential. Wish the authors good luck in taking this work forward.

References:
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

I am fine with the review. I have few observations:

1. However, I am still not convinced why the authors have not provided completed results of analysis in Table 4 (including all control variables).
2. Also, there continue to remain some errors in the manuscript:
   a. Page 15, line 5: t-value is still written as ‘T-value’
   b. Authors must explain what does f-square (pages 15, lines 12, 25, 29, 36) mean. I believe the authors are mentioning here Cohen’s f-squared. They must give the ranges about the effect sizes to let the authors know the significance of their results.
   c. Page 16, lines 24-27: ‘contradicted’ should be replaced with ‘contradictory’; ‘intermediates’ should be replaced with ‘intermediating variables’
   d. Page 16, line 34: ‘Just’ from ‘Just looking…’ must be dropped. It does not look like proper English sentence.

Overall, I am satisfied with the revision. Wish the authors good luck in taking this work forward.