PONE-D-20-18796

Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction among Disabled Workers

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Choe,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 28 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

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

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

M Niaz Asadullah

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Yes

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: Using a panel data from PSED, this paper examines the effects of gender on job satisfaction among disable workers in Korea. This paper addresses the gender differences in job satisfaction of disable workers which is an important and current issue in the literature of job/life satisfaction. It is a well-structured paper, with a steady focus – the gender differences are explored using different model specifications, including the control variables of work values and expectations (proxy). Most of my doubts and questions tend to be addressed quickly. This paper has a potential benefit to the readers of PLOS ONE. Nevertheless, this paper is not publishable in its present form due to the some major concerns (pls refer to the uploaded reviewer report for details).

Reviewer #2: The paper examines gender differences in job satisfaction among disabled workers using random-effects ordered-probit models. The authors follow Clark (1997) to some extent. The main contribution of the paper is an analysis of this gender differences among disabled workers.

1. I wonder why the authors exclude “observations with missing information for any relevant variables”. Is it to have a balanced panel dataset? The problem is they drop most of the observations. For the year 2015, for example, they keep only 19% of observations in the dataset. I think the authors should use larger sample size if possible. Having unbalanced panel data or fewer independent variables is fine to have a more representative sample. It will also increase the sample size so that the authors have larger power to reject the null hypotheses.

2. The authors estimate separate regressions by age, education, and occupation to explore whether expectations explain gender differences in job satisfaction whose results are presented in Table 5. I think it is difficult to draw conclusions from Table 5 because (1) whether the estimates differ is not formally tested; (2) the authors may have weak power to reject the null hypothesis in some of the specifications (the sample size is small); (3) the authors cannot draw conclusions by comparing the statistical significance (in fact, the difference between statistically significant and statistically insignificant estimates may be statistically insignificant). I think the authors should estimate regressions with interactions between gender and each of the above three variables; I think that is the more proper approach.

3. The authors seem to only cite Clark (1997) to justify their approach of testing whether expectations explain gender differences in job satisfaction. Consider elaborating this approach further so that readers can see why this approach may help answering the research question.

4. I think the authors should more carefully draw conclusions from their results. In the abstract, for example, they conclude “[their] findings reveal that different work values between women and men do not account for the still significant higher job satisfaction of women, although they contribute to a partial decrease of the gender gap in job satisfaction”. I do not see evidence that different work values “contribute to a partial decrease of the gender gap” in Table 4. (The estimate “decreases” from 0.225 to 0.222 but probably they do not differ statistically.) I am also unsure what they mean when they say job satisfaction of women is significantly higher; do they mean significantly higher statistically? They then conclude that the hypothesis on the role of expectations is “supported by the empirical analyses that gender differentials disappear for the young, …”. But failing to reject the null hypothesis does not mean that there are no gender differences in job satisfaction; maybe they do not have enough power to reject the null hypothesis because the sample size is smaller. Moreover, as I write above, the difference between gender differences in job satisfaction in the “young” and “older” specifications may be statistically insignificant. (I find other possible misinterpretations of their results: I do not see evidence that adding measures of job characteristics increases gender differences in job satisfaction (Table 2); I do not see evidence that “women are more likely to put more weight on work intensity, work hours, aptitude, …” (Table 3); job satisfaction may not necessarily decrease just because the estimate in Model 4 is smaller; see also the conclusions.)

5. Consider using fixed-effects in addition to random-effects ordered probit model to see whether the results are robust.

6. Consider presenting the standard errors in tables of results, not only the asterisks.

**********

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: Yes: Hock-Eam Lim

Reviewer #2: No

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer report 03Aug20.pdf

PONE-D-20-18796R1

Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction among Disabled Workers

PLOS ONE

Dear Authors,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 5 June 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hafiz T.A. Khan, Ph.D, CStat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. 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 #3: Yes

**********

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. 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 revised paper has improved substantially and most of the concerns are addressed satisfactorily. This paper indeed has a potential benefit to the readers of PLOS ONE. There are only a few minor concerns which the authors might wish to address with:

The variable, 〖JS〗_it^ , need to be labelled as well (line 245). For instance, “…probability that 〖JS〗_it^ (i.e., the reported job satisfaction) is equivalent …”

The specification of cut points seems inaccurate. “…κ is a set of cut points κ_1,κ_2,…,κ_4 ; …” (line 250). This specification does not match with the Equation (3) in terms of j. According to Long (1997), the specification should be “…κ is a set of cut points κ_0,κ_2,…,κ_5 (where κ_0=-∞ & κ_5=+∞) ; …”. This will match the Equation (3).

It is stated that “…Our findings confirm that men are as happy in their workplace as women on average …” (line 324-325). From Table 3, it shows that women are happier than men. Please check.

The use of the words, “…statistically insignificantly…” (line 340) seems weird. Please rewrite this sentence.

The LR test statistics in Table 3 (Model 1) seem to incorrectly report. The extremely high values of LR test statistics (1388.089) appears to contradict with the low Wald chi-squared test statistics (2.325). Both LR test and Wald test are overall fit tests. They normally would not have huge differences in their test statistics. Please check.

Title of Table 3, 4 and 5 include the word, “standard error” in parenthesis. How about delete it and include a footnote under the tables, such as “The values in parenthesis represent standard error”?

Please refer to the attached reviewer report for a better presentation of the characters and symbols.

Reviewer #3: The previous comments by Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 are robustly addressed by the authors. This significantly made the results and findings more clearer and unambiguous. However, the concerns of the Reviewer 2 (Comments 2.1 and 2.4) on smaller size of the sample is an important issue which needs to be acknowledged explicitly as a research limitation in the conclusions section.

**********

7. 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: Yes: Lim Hock-Eam

Reviewer #3: No

[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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer report 22Feb21.pdf

Gender Differences in Job Satisfaction among Disabled Workers

PONE-D-20-18796R2

Dear Authors,

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

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Professor Hafiz T.A. Khan, Ph.D, CStat

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: