Understanding Employability in Changing Labor Market Contexts: The Case of an Emerging Market Economy of Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations on the work. I will make a few suggestions below:

- How was the theoretical portfolio obtained? I missed more current references on Human Resources 4.0, Job Market and Skill for the job market. 

- In general, the references in section 2.1 are very old. The same is true for section 2.2.

- In section 2.3, I suggest developing a flowchart or chart that shows the steps of the methodology, with the intended results. A roadmap needs to be created for following the research methodology.

- Section 4 " 4. Empirical Findings" has interesting results, but it is necessary to structure the results of each subsection (4.1 through 4.3) with final products for each. It could be a summary table pointing out the main findings.

- Section 5 " Results" contains interesting discussions. Similarly, I suggest you organize the main analysis of the 4 arguments regarding the employability among workers in the changing labor market contexts of Thailand into a framework, inserting their implications for  the labor market.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1I found the topic interesting and provide my comments to assist with the further development of this work.

    1)        Abstract: For Sustainability, the abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The authors should mention the findings in a concise and meaningful manner.

2)        Line 42 - 44 (VUCA, BANI):  Is there a typo? Please check carefully what VUCA and BANI contain. The source should also be cited. 

3)        Line 48 -52, 56-67, 70-79, 266-275:   It is worth pointing out the sources.

4)        Line 54-56: There should be more detail that "How has their perceptions and views about their work patterns and goals for work and life changed?"

5)        Line 99-106: The sentences and citations in this section have almost 100% overlap with previously published papers. I strongly suggest paraphrasing the sentences.

6)        Line 101 -102 (Thairath Online, 2014):  I suggest citing the primary sources of this information, NESDC or the National Statistical Office of Thailand instead of Thairath and it should be the latest information published in 2021/2022.

7)        Line 163-168:

     “In fact, scholars from various fields view employability from different perspectives. For instance, scholars in the field of higher education perceive employability as competences that help prepare students or graduates for the uncertainties and challenges that they may face in their careers. In other words, if these students or graduates have these competences, they will finally have employability.”

     In this respect, it is also wise pointing out references. Other sources should be considered, for example:

- Consequences and Challenges of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Impact on the Development of Employability Skills

- Relationships between ICT competencies related to work, self-esteem, and self-regulated learning with engineering competencies

- Comparing Employability Skills of Technical and Vocational Education Students of Thailand and Malaysia: A Case Study of International Industrial Work-Integrated Learning

8)        Line 215-230, 253-262, 287-295, 301-305, 320-337, 360-367, 393-407, 428-432, 450-454, 881-899, 1015-1023: The order of references and content overlap with previously published papers. I strongly suggest that these materials be paraphrased as well.

9)        Line 401-407: Additional detail is needed for Ethics Approval and informed consent statements. The name of the approving body and the approval number/ID should be included in the manuscript.

10)     “4.1. Changing Thai Labor Market Contexts” and “5. Discussion”: In these sections, if writing references previous work, it is also worth pointing out the sources.

11)     If the author adds the figure of the research method, it will help a wide range of international readers to understand the research process easier.

12)     What are the inclusion and exclusion criteria of the informant or participants in this study? It should be explained.

13)     Table 1: To make it easier for readers to understand data, Position/Industry column should be separated into 2 columns.

14)     English language and style are needed editing throughout the manuscript.

15)     References are not made properly and do not meet the format requirements of Sustainability.

       The information for each reference should be rechecked (throughout the article), for example: "The construct of institutional distance through the lens of different institutional perspectives: Review, analysis, and recommendations". 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Please check English.

If possible, make the paper a little bit shorter.

Please cite the papers which you can find in the .pdf document attached.

Thank you for letting me read your work  :-)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations to the authors. The article has improved from the revisions made and will certainly contribute a lot to the literature in this area.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reference formatting styles for Sustainability, references must be cited with numbers between brackets in order of appearance in the text. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf