A Study of Reciprocal Job Recommendation for College Graduates Integrating Semantic Keyword Matching and Social Networking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. In the abstract, it is best to briefly describe the outstanding problems of current social employment contradictions and the manifestations of social problems in which existing methods are contradictory.

2. The abstract summarizes that the research method has a scientific and logical application scope and must be clear, and it must be able to achieve a certain social effect and exceed the high-quality development requirements of society.

It is necessary to focus on a data word in the grammar for verification.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article explores a current topic, proposing an innovative method for recommending jobs to college graduates. By dissecting semantic keyword matching, social networking, and reciprocity, it not only brings clarity to the job recommendation landscape but also offers valuable insights that can significantly enhance graduates' employment prospects.

Author Response

I sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing my manuscript. I am also deeply thankful for your approval and positive reception of my work.

Reviewer 3 Report

An interesting and properly constructed article. The main question addressed in the study concerns the possibility of improving the match between the characteristics of a graduate and the place of his or her first job. This problem is the subject of current scientific considerations and still requires further exploration. The article presents new proposals for solutions aimed at improving the mutual adjustment between the graduate and his workplace. I suggest expanding your literature review to include some additional publications from the last few years. It is also worth expanding the "Discussion" section and clearly showing the extent to which new research results extend, confirm or contradict previous research. Additionally, the limitations of the study should be described in greater detail.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors present work on reciprocal and other approaches to job recommendation.   They work with a real dataset of over 100 students seeking jobs and 280 job openings.   They evaluate 5 algorithms and show that one, the JRSR approach that incorporates keyword overlaps and social networks, outperforms other approaches.   They support their results with a test of significance.

Overall, the paper is well-written and supported by many figures.   In my opinion, section 4.2 could be removed.  The discussion of the geographic location of the students in the dataset is not relevant to their results.

It would be nice to see an ablation study.   The JRSR approach employs a combination of 3 matching phases, i.e., keyword, salary, social network.   It should be compared to a version of JRSR where each of those phases is missing to better understand the contributions of each component to the overall quality of the results.

There are a few grammatically awkward statements, particularly in the abstract, but overall the paper is easy to read.

Author Response

Please refer to the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf