PONE-D-19-21532

Deviant behavior and creative performance—the two outcomes of overqualification: The role of career and survival job

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rahman,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Dec 01 2019 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Amelia Manuti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have discussed whether participation was voluntary and that the data were collected and analyzed anonymously.

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

• The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript
• A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)
• A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. Please provide your institutional email address through your Editorial Manager Account.

5.  We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

6. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Authors,

I have now received a blind evaluation of your manuscript from an anonymous reviewer who has considerable expertise in the field. I have also thoroughly read your manuscript. Although a number of strengths were identified, as you will see, the reviews have also highlighted some main shortcomings. Therefore we suggest to substantially revise the manuscript before resubmitting it to the journal. After a close reading of the text, I believe the problems identified by the reviewer and by my self are likely to be successfully addressed even if an hard work is needed.

best regards,

amelia manuti

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript (MS) ‘Deviant behavior and creative performance—the two outcomes of overqualification: The role of career and survival job’ presents a study in a non-WEIRD sample in which hypothesis are tested relating consequences of the overqualification with two criterion variables: deviant behavior and creative performance. The ms subject is relevant mainly because the research was done in substutided culture concerning this and other subjects tipically researched in organizational psychology. The ms has contributions to the literature, but in its present shape it lacks some main issues, which lead me to recommend a revision.

The MS has some central conceptual flaws, such as a clear and explicit definition of deviant behavior and creative performance. The author argues that the use of students as source of information is a contribution to the field of research, but there is no clarity of which measure was applied to students and how it was operationalized. For instance, the paragraph between lines 252-258 that should describe such measure is not clear and produce misunderstandings in the reader when there is mentions of supervisor ratings. Which supervisors?

It is also important to mention that the description of H3 and H4 are inaccurate, considering both hypotheses are impossible to falsify, considering it describe all possible relationships that variables can have. Concerning authors used measures built in different cultures is essential that they providence evidences of cultural adaptation of such measures, considering many different problems that such emerge to this kind of use, such as imposed-ethics.

A minor issue: the MS deserve a careful revision of spelling errors, because there are several throughout the MS.

I consider that the MS has important contributions, but it deserves a careful revision in the above mentioned issues to be suitable to publication in PLOSOne.

Reviewer #2: The paper deals with a very interesting and quite original topic that would be certainly of interest for the readership of the journal: the relationship between overqualification perception and creative performance and deviant behaviors in the workplace. Though an overall positive appreciation I think that the ms has some weaknesses that need to be addressed. First of all, the theoretical section needs to be enriched by a more extensive description of the constructs considered. the authors have articultaed this introductory section into a literature review that carefully considered the ingle relationships between overqualification and creative performance and overqualification and deviant behaviors. however, there is no clear definition neither of deviant behavior nor of creative performance. also career or survaival job is not cleary defined. Further I am not fully conviced about H3 and H4 that sound ambiguous since they consider both positive and negative relationships at the same time. Finally, participants to the study have been both students and teachers. but actually I cannot find reference to how and why students been involved in a study related to overqualification. The conclusion section is too short. I will sugest to make a single section discussion and conclusion and then practical implications and future reserach. Language should also be improved. There are a number of mispelled words. I suggest a native speaker check.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: amelia manuti

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Two angles of overqualification-the deviant behavior and creative performance: The role of career and survival job

PONE-D-19-21532R1

Dear Dr. Rahman,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Amelia Manuti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

I have had read carefully the authors responses to the two reviews and also the revised manuscript attached. the authors have addressed the main concerns raised and finally the paper is very much improved. In its current form it is a stronger paper that deserves publication. I only suggest a fianl careful reading to amend any grammar error especially within the red sections.

Reviewers' comments: