Are University Students Ready to Work? The Role of Soft Skills and Psychological Capital in Building Sustainable Employability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript requires substantial revision to enhance its theoretical clarity, empirical rigor, and overall contribution.

The proposed model, while theoretically coherent, demonstrates limited incremental contribution, as most hypothesised relationships are intuitive and well-established; the authors should clearly specify what is novel in terms of theoretical integration, population, or contextual insights.

Conceptual overlap between soft skills, Psychological Capital, and employability further weakens theoretical distinctiveness, and the manuscript would benefit from a stronger justification for treating soft skills as antecedents and PsyCap as a mediating mechanism, ideally supported by empirical mediation analysis.

Additionally, the Discussion frequently overinterprets correlational findings, using causal or developmental language that is not warranted by the cross-sectional, self-report design; associative language should replace causal claims, with careful distinction between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation.

Comparisons between STEM and non-STEM students are also overextended, as only configural invariance is reported without formal testing of structural path differences, and such interpretations should be framed as exploratory.

Finally, sections of the Discussion and Limitations are excessively long and redundant, and the reference list includes sources not cited in the text; condensing these sections and streamlining references would improve clarity, focus, and alignment between claims and evidence.

Addressing these issues is essential to strengthening the manuscript’s scholarly contribution and suitability for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In general, the manuscript largely conforms to the academic language expected in a scientific article, demonstrating subject-specific terminology, a formal style, and engagement with the relevant literature. However, there are notable deviations that reduce full alignment with academic conventions. These include occasional vague expressions, causal language not supported by correlational data, informal or idiomatic phrasing, and overly long or convoluted sentences. While these issues do not undermine the core scientific content, they do affect readability and the professional tone. Careful revision to replace informal or ambiguous language with precise, academically standard expressions would ensure full conformity with the expectations of a peer-reviewed scientific article.

Author Response

The manuscript requires substantial revision to enhance its theoretical clarity, empirical rigor, and overall contribution.

The proposed model, while theoretically coherent, demonstrates limited incremental contribution, as most hypothesised relationships are intuitive and well-established; the authors should clearly specify what is novel in terms of theoretical integration, population, or contextual insights.

We agree that the individual links are supported by prior literature. We therefore revised the manuscript to make the novelty explicit. Specifically, we clarified that the contribution lies in (i) integrating soft skills, PsyCap, multidimensional employability, job crafting (seeking challenges), and active job search within a single JD–R-informed SEM; (ii) modelling employability as a higher-order construct that captures adaptability and relational/digital capital; and (iii) providing contextual evidence from Italian university students and examining the generalizability across STEM vs. non-STEM domains. These clarifications were added in the Introduction (end of Section 1.5), in the Conceptual Model section (Section 1.6), and in the opening of the Discussion (Section 4).

Conceptual overlap between soft skills, Psychological Capital, and employability further weakens theoretical distinctiveness, and the manuscript would benefit from a stronger justification for treating soft skills as antecedents and PsyCap as a mediating mechanism, ideally supported by empirical mediation analysis.

Thank you for this important and constructive comment. We have strengthened the manuscript to more clearly distinguish the conceptual roles of soft skills, Psychological Capital (PsyCap), and employability, and to justify the proposed directional relationships. First, we clarified the theoretical distinction between the constructs by explicitly defining soft skills as behavioral and self-regulatory competencies, PsyCap as a set of positive psychological states, and employability as a multidimensional outcome encompassing adaptive perceptions and behaviors. This clarification has been added to Section 1.1 and reinforced in the opening of the Discussion. Second, we provided a stronger theoretical justification for treating soft skills as antecedent personal resources and PsyCap as a theoretical mediating psychological mechanism, grounded in the Job Demands–Resources framework and supported by prior longitudinal and intervention-based evidence. These clarifications were added to Section 1.6 (Conceptual Model). From an empirical perspective, we also emphasized that discriminant validity analyses (Fornell–Larcker criterion and HTMT ratio) support the distinctiveness of the constructs, addressing concerns of conceptual overlap (Sections 3.1 and 4). Finally, we explicitly acknowledged in the Limitations section (Section 6) that, due to the cross-sectional design, formal mediation analyses were not conducted, and we indicated that future longitudinal and experimental studies should explicitly test the mediating role of PsyCap. We believe that these revisions substantially strengthen the theoretical clarity and justification of the proposed model while appropriately acknowledging methodological constraints.

 

Additionally, the Discussion frequently overinterprets correlational findings, using causal or developmental language that is not warranted by the cross-sectional, self-report design; associative language should replace causal claims, with careful distinction between empirical evidence and theoretical speculation.

Thank you for this important methodological observation. We agree that, given the cross-sectional and self-report nature of the study, causal or developmental interpretations should be avoided. Accordingly, we carefully revised the Discussion section to ensure that the interpretation of results consistently reflects their associational nature. Specifically, we replaced causal or developmental wording (e.g., “lead to,” “produce,” “result in,” “foster”) with non-causal, associative language (e.g., “are associated with,” “are linked to,” “are related to,” “suggest a relationship between”). This revision was applied throughout Section 4 to align the interpretation of findings with the study design. In addition, we strengthened the distinction between empirical evidence and theoretical interpretation, explicitly framing references to mechanisms (e.g., PsyCap as an intervening process) as theoretically grounded explanations rather than causal conclusions. Finally, we further emphasized the correlational nature of the findings in the Limitations section (Section 6), explicitly acknowledging that causal inferences cannot be drawn and that longitudinal or experimental designs are needed to test developmental or mediational processes. We believe that these revisions improve methodological rigor and ensure that conclusions remain fully consistent with the empirical design of the study.

 

Comparisons between STEM and non-STEM students are also overextended, as only configural invariance is reported without formal testing of structural path differences, and such interpretations should be framed as exploratory.

Thank you for this comment. We agree that, since only configural invariance was tested, comparisons between STEM and non-STEM students should be interpreted cautiously. Accordingly, we revised the Discussion to frame STEM vs. non-STEM differences as exploratory and descriptive, rather than confirmatory, and clarified that no formal tests of structural path differences were conducted. We also acknowledged this limitation in the Limitations section and indicated that future research should apply formal multi-group invariance testing to examine between-group differences more rigorously.

 

Finally, sections of the Discussion and Limitations are excessively long and redundant, and the reference list includes sources not cited in the text; condensing these sections and streamlining references would improve clarity, focus, and alignment between claims and evidence.

Thank you for this comment. In response, we substantially revised and condensed both the Discussion and the Limitations sections, removing redundancies, streamlining theoretical reiterations, and sharpening the distinction between empirical findings and theoretical interpretation. The revised sections now focus more clearly on the integrated contribution of the study, while maintaining appropriate methodological caution. In addition, we carefully reviewed and streamlined the reference list, removing sources that were not cited in the revised manuscript and ensuring full alignment between references and in-text citations. We believe that these revisions significantly improve clarity, coherence, and consistency between claims and evidence.

 

 

Addressing these issues is essential to strengthening the manuscript’s scholarly contribution and suitability for publication.

 

 

In general, the manuscript largely conforms to the academic language expected in a scientific article, demonstrating subject-specific terminology, a formal style, and engagement with the relevant literature. However, there are notable deviations that reduce full alignment with academic conventions. These include occasional vague expressions, causal language not supported by correlational data, informal or idiomatic phrasing, and overly long or convoluted sentences. While these issues do not undermine the core scientific content, they do affect readability and the professional tone. Careful revision to replace informal or ambiguous language with precise, academically standard expressions would ensure full conformity with the expectations of a peer-reviewed scientific article.

We thank the reviewer for this careful assessment of the manuscript’s language. We would like to clarify that one of the co-authors is a native English speaker and was directly involved in the revision process. In response to the reviewer’s observations, we systematically revised the manuscript to improve linguistic precision and academic tone, with particular attention to:
(i) replacing informal, idiomatic, or vague expressions with standard academic phrasing;
(ii) consistently adopting associative rather than causal language, in line with the correlational and cross-sectional design; and
(iii) shortening or restructuring overly long or convoluted sentences to enhance clarity and readability.

We believe that these revisions have substantially improved the manuscript’s conformity with the linguistic and stylistic expectations of a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript is well-organized and objective. It addresses the relationships between variables relevant to career development, even though the study's methodology is not complex.

However, there are some aspects that deserve review:

1. The study was conducted with Italian participants. If the original versions of the measurement scales were not used, it is important to reference the authors of the translated version or indicate that one of the objectives is to contribute to it. This obviously does not apply to scales where the original version is already in Italian.
2. there is a yellow underline on line 433 that should be removed.
3. the hypotheses need to be discussed more clearly. Although there is an extensive body of text in the discussion, there is no reference to the hypotheses. This makes it difficult to discuss the results in light of the content previously included in the manuscript.
4. The following references do not appear in the final list of references in the manuscript:
   Salovey & Mayer, 1990;
   Alessandri et al., 2018;
   Savickas (2013);
   Bakker (2020).

5. 5. The following references appear in the final list, but not in the body of the text:
   Bakker et al. (2012);
   Huang et al. (2021).
   Please specify which references from Yorke (2006) should remain in the final list.

   
   Best regards,

Author Response

Dear Authors,

Your manuscript is well-organized and objective. It addresses the relationships between variables relevant to career development, even though the study's methodology is not complex.

However, there are some aspects that deserve review:

1. The study was conducted with Italian participants. If the original versions of the measurement scales were not used, it is important to reference the authors of the translated version or indicate that one of the objectives is to contribute to it. This obviously does not apply to scales where the original version is already in Italian.

Thank you for this important comment. About the language of the instruments, we clarify that validated Italian versions were used whenever available, and the corresponding validation studies have been cited in the manuscript (e.g., Mazzetti et al., 2018; Ingusci et al., 2018; Lo Presti et al., 2019). For the Soft Skills scale adapted from Spencer and Spencer (2008) and the Job Search Behavior Scale by Blau (1994), no validated Italian versions were available at the time of the study. Therefore, an ad hoc translation was carried out by the authors, following standard translation–adaptation procedures and ensuring conceptual equivalence with the original instruments. This clarification has now been explicitly added to the manuscript.

1. there is a yellow underline on line 433 that should be removed.

Thank you for pointing this out. In the version of the manuscript we uploaded, we do not see any yellow underline on line 433; therefore, we were unable to make any changes. However, we will carefully check the final version and remove it should it appear there.

1. the hypotheses need to be discussed more clearly. Although there is an extensive body of text in the discussion, there is no reference to the hypotheses. This makes it difficult to discuss the results in light of the content previously included in the manuscript.

Thank you for this helpful comment. We agree that the Discussion section should explicitly refer back to the study hypotheses (H1–H5). We have therefore revised the Discussion by adding a hypotheses-driven structure, explicitly discussing each result in relation to H1–H5 and clarifying whether each hypothesis was supported. This revision makes the interpretation of findings more transparent and directly aligned with the manuscript’s theoretical premises.

1. The following references do not appear in the final list of references in the manuscript:
   Salovey & Mayer, 1990;
   Alessandri et al., 2018;
   Savickas (2013);
   Bakker (2020).

Thank you for this comment. We have carefully checked the reference list and updated it accordingly. The references Salovey & Mayer (1990), Alessandri et al. (2018), and Savickas (2013) have now been added to the final list of references. The reference Bakker (2020) was removed, as it was not actually cited in the manuscript.

 

1. 5. The following references appear in the final list, but not in the body of the text:
   Bakker et al. (2012);
   Huang et al. (2021).
   Please specify which references from Yorke (2006) should remain in the final list.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have carefully revised the reference list accordingly.
The references Bakker et al. (2012) and Huang et al. (2021) have been removed, as they were not cited in the body of the manuscript.
Concerning Yorke (2006), we have retained both references (2006a and 2006b), as they are both cited in the text and refer to distinct works.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic and is based on a solid empirical design. The results are clearly presented; however, minor improvements to the theoretical framing, discussion, and language clarity would strengthen the paper. Overall, the manuscript is suitable for publication after minor revision.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I have no further questions or observations to make.

 

Best regards.