Impact of Self-Perceived Employability on Sustainable Career Development in Times of COVID-19: Two Mediating Paths
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study focuses on the impact of self-perceived employability on sustainable career development due to COVID19. Pages 2-3 for a list of the goals covered in this article. As you read, you create an impression. This article aims to contribute to the literature in three important ways. However, the question arises: in what literature? A scientific research contribution cannot be formulated in this way unless it is a review. This article is a sociological study. Authors need to build a hierarchy of "goal and objectives".
However, the authors need to correct the text in terms of the scientific language adopted in scientific articles and correct the text in terms of the representation of the author's ideas. Thus, making the section "2. Theories and Hypotheses Development" more communicative is necessary. If you present the hypotheses at the beginning of the section and then consistently show why the authors come to these hypotheses, then the section will better understand the author's intention. This remark arises because section 2 is divided into subsections, which further complicates the reader's communication process.
Also, the conclusion does not create the integrity of the article. The "Discussion" section presents some findings on the article, and they are much richer than the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There might be some merit to this paper, but authors have to have a major revision in communicating their purposes, conclusions and implications. Here are my comments:
- The structure of the paper is messed up. Figure 1 caption is missing until a few lines on the next page. Page 10 is out of margin.
- Tables of validity and reliability are missing (see attached)
- Items should be included in the text (see attached format)
- Tables for calculations for mediation are missing (see attached)
- The tile is too long
- The abstract fails to clearly give a purpose statement
- What is the research gap? What are the research questions?
- Authors have to show the need for the study in theory and possible implications in the introduction
- The model presented seems just like a model that didn't originally work and then the authors are trying to make sense of something that is not supported by the literature review.
- It is not clear how the COR Theory relates to the research model of the study. In his Conservation of Resources (COR) Theory, Hobfoll (2001) argues that people who possess aspects of the self that reflect a sense of resiliency and an ability to manipulate the environment are more capable of resource gain. An alternative and more conservative interpretation is that they are less vulnerable to resource loss: they are able to protect established resources. In all, personal resources may protect workers against mental health problems. [Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). The influence of culture, community, and the nested-self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 337–421. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00062]
- More than 65% of the references are more than 4 years old, please update to show the currency of your research
- Please refer to some publications in Sustainability for proper formatting and presentation of the findings.
- Please refer to the attached document as a sample to present your findings
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Interesting topic, congratulations on the research idea, However, I see a few disadvantages:
1. The analysis of the literature of the individual elements does not include a critical view of the shortcomings.
2. No description of the perceived gap in identifying research questions
3. Lack of methodology dependency, why this one and not others?
4. tests carried out correctly, although there are no logical comparisons for the subject
5. the abstract does not reflect the content
5. A very long discussion with no specific conclusions
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have significantly improved the text, taking into account the comments. The text has become much clearer and more readable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for taking my suggestions under consideration. As for the formatting problem, I understand, since lately this happens quite often. Here are a few comments that need your attention before I send this paper for publication.
- Please also add a table before Table 5, but similar, summarizing your hypotheses results
- In section 2 include the abbreviation of each variable when you introduce your variables.
- Include the abbreviation of your variables in your models (Figures 1 & 2).
- Your mediation analysis is the main point of this paper, but I do not see much discussion related to the mediation.
- Although all mediators are significant, one has negative loading (H3a) and the other is a very weak mediator (H3b). Please indicate where you have discussed and showed the importance of this finding?
- What is the meaning of a negative mediator?
- Please highlight the above changes in your reply.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article now looks much better, it is understandable and logical.
There is still a lot of very old literature, but that is acceptable if the other reviewers have no problem with it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your responses. It's all clear and well addressed. I am still uncertain about your mediation explanation. Line 425-444 is the revised explanation. However, the two points I mention:
Point 5: Although all mediators are significant, one has negative loading (H3a) and the other is a very weak mediator (H3b). Please indicate where you have discussed and showed the importance of this finding?
and
Point 6: What is the meaning of a negative mediator?
Remain unclear. I encourage the authors to think of the implications of this finding and its practical use as well.
In addition, I am not sure where the 0.07 effect size comes from? Where in this paper authors have calculated the effect size? Did you run the Sobel test?
Please expand the explanation of your findings regarding the mediation. Again, your title obligates you to make a better conclusion of your mediation results. You also need citations to support your findings. It may not be directly related to COVID but in a similar situation.
Thank you
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
