PONE-D-22-21757Globalization and Employment Nexus: Moderating Role of Human CapitalPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. FAHLEVI,

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 Oct 10 2022 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: https://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,

Jabbar Ul-Haq, PhD

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

[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: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: This paper is interesting to deal with globalization and employment, which is the most important due to COVID-19 consequences. Therefore, before made a final decision, it should be further improved.

Abstract.

This part should be restructured and consciously.

Introduction :

This part is failed to explain the research questions, problem and significant of the study. Besides, there is no valid reason of choosing the Asian economies. I strongly suggest that clearly describe the strong reason of choosing the Asian economies as a sample. Globalization does not only affect the one region but overall the world.

Literature Review:

I suggest that literature review part should be described in the sub-section e.g., nexus between globalization and employment etc. Please, re-arrange according to specific segments.

Empirical and discussion :

These parts should be emerged into one and concisely described with mechanical and theoretical interpretations. The drawback of this part is, authors explained only mechanical interpretation and very less. I strongly suggest that please describe all results with critically and compare with former studies.

Also, author did not define the term' specification 1-6' in the whole paper but use the model. Please clearly define and argue why use ?

Conclusion:

I saw that authors explained 6 specifications in the model but they are talking about 12 specification. Please clarify with arguments.

This study analyzes the moderating role of human capital in globalization-employment nexus in

30 Asian countries. For this, annual panel data has been collected from 1996 to 2019 by using 12

specifications. The static relationship between variable has been checked by using fixed effects

model and random effects model techniques. The dynamic relationship has been checked by GMM

approach.

This part should be extended more and please provide policy recommendations based on empirical findings in separate section.

Good luck

Reviewer #2: The main aim of this paper is to investigate analyzes the moderating role of human capital in globalization employment nexus in 26 Asian countries. The topic is interesting, and it is a good idea to investigate this role.

The empirical literature has been presented in a systematic manner but needs moe up to date citations. The discussion of the results is fine too. However, the FE and RE results maybe compared with the results of the system GMM if only the initial value of employment is included in these specifications. Also, the sentence structure must be improved and some grammatical errors removed in order to allow for the logical flow of ideas. I have pointed out some of these issues below. Furthermore, there is no policy implication and recommendations for further study. If all these concerns are taken care of, the paper will be more interesting.

Reviewer #3: Manuscript number: PONE-D-22-21757

Title: Globalization and Employment Nexus: Moderating Role of Human Capital

General comment

This work is interesting work that needs major revision to be fit for publications in POLS ONE.

Recommendations: Major revision

1. Abstract

Abstract should start with problem statement and conclude with policy recommendations briefly. The organization of abstract is not satisfactory

2. Introduction

Introduction is not satisfactory authors should start with research problem along with providing detail rationale of the study. The novelty factor should be also highlighted properly.

3. Literature Review

The literature review section should discuss with theoretical model and discuss critically existing literature to highlight gap that this study aims to address. This section should explain novelty contribution of the study.

4. Methodology

The author should highlight source of equations, explain rationale why authors have used so many equations. Second, with test authors used to check multicollinearity problem. Also explain the rationale of variable used along with expected sign.

5. Results and Discussion

A real discussion of the findings is lacking. The discussion of empirical results indicates the lack of knowledge in your study area. Discussion and implications need to underline the contributions along with support from prior literature. Moreover, the diagnostics test analysis is missing here.

6. Conclusion

Conclusion part should highlight findings of this study that will lead to policy implications. Moreover, limitation of study and direction for future research should be properly highlighted.

Reviewer #4: Manuscript number: PONE-D-22-21757

Title: Globalization and Employment Nexus: Moderating Role of Human Capital

General comment:

This study investigates the Globalization and Employment Nexus: Moderating Role of Human Capital using annual panel datasets of Asian economies. This paper has some contribution to the literature. However, there are a lot of problems. Thus, I think this paper need major revision before publish in PLOS ONE

Recommendations: Major revision

Abstract

• The abstract need to comprehensively improve.

• Study should introduce policy implications.

• Need to add jell code.

Introduction

• Introduction of the study is poor so need improvement and rewrite due to lack of knowledge.

• The contribution of the study is ambiguous, the study should improve the contribution and rewrite.

• Study need to give support by citing references, “Globalization is defined as the combination of capital flows, foreign direct investment, trade, technology, and labor mobility with the national economy” , “On the influence of globalization on employment, there is no consistency among researchers”

• Study needs to cite the updated references

Literature Review

• Study should describe the seminal work about the association between globalization and employment.

• The study literature review is too weak and need to update till 2022

• Novelty of the study is not sufficiently clarify, the paper did highlight the contribution of the paper in the literature, but it is quite weak. It is important to identify the weakness of previous papers, and show the argument and contribution of paper.

• Remove the heading of novelty from literature section and add the literature summary.

Theoretical Framework

• The study need to describe the theoretical relationship between globalization, employment, and human capital based on some theory.

• The study should add the theoretical framework and theoretical channels about how the variable affect each other.

Data and Methodology

• The sample period is from 1996-2019, need to update the dataset as it is 2022.

• The paper should include the variables description table.

• Provide the reference from previous literature who used the same proxy of variables and include expected sign for the variables used in study.

Results and Discussion

• A real discussion of the findings is lacking. The discussion of empirical results indicates the lack of knowledge in your study area.

• The study should interpret results in results section (with tables).

• The length of the paper seems to be inappropriate. It should be more comprehensive.

• Discussion and implications need to underline the contributions of the paper by hooking them to previous research.

• Moreover, the diagnostics test analysis is missing here.

• Check the first sentence of econometric analysis. “As we used panel data therefore we have to decide whether fixed effect or random effect model should be used”

• Need to check tables as some models are insignificant and justify the estimated sign in discussion section.

• The study support the findings with previous literature (The findings of the current study support the findings of previous studies of Lee et al. (2010), Malik et al., (2011), Gozgor (2014), Awad and Youssof (2016), Daly et al. (2017), Gozgor (2017), Adamu et al. (2018), Siddiqa et al. (2018) and Alfalih and Hadj (2021).), also need here to contradict the findings with previous literature.

• Add zero (0) before point in models.

Conclusion

• Conclusion need to make attractive by adding comprehensive detail and add some suitable starting paragraph/sentence by following close literature to your study.

• Conclusion and recommendation should be written as a separate headings

• The sphere of impact of the research and considerable aspect of furtherance of the study should be stated.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Shujaat Abbas

Reviewer #4: Yes: Sana Khanum

**********

[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: Plus one comments.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOSONE_24 aug 2022.docx

PONE-D-22-21757R1Globalization and Employment Nexus: Moderating Role of Human CapitalPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. FAHLEVI,

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 Nov 13 2022 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: https://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,

Jabbar Ul-Haq, PhD

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Authors are required to respond to Reviewer 2 comments only

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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: Dear authors, thank you for incorporating the issues in the final draft. Thus, I would like to accept the draft in its current form.

Reviewer #2: After carefully reading the paper, I can now confirm that the authors addressed all eight of the initial concerns. This revised manuscript satisfies the requirements for publication in PLUS ONE Journal. As a result, I believe the paper should be considered for publication in your esteemed journal.

The authors must, however, address the following minor concerns:

1. In the theoretical framework, the sentence “According to the Heckscher-Ohlin model, globalization increased employment in developing countries” should be According to the Heckscher-Ohlin model, globalization will increase employment in developing countries.

2. “Are” should be deleted from this sentence “However, the diagnostic tests are shown in tables 4 to 7 point out that the model suffers from heteroscedasticity and serial correlation problems”.

Reviewer #3: All comments incorporated by the authors. Therefore I am accepting this article for publication. Good Luck

Reviewer #4: This paper has some contribution to the literature and the authors have addressed all comments in a good way and may be accepted for publication on the Globalization and Employment Nexus: Moderating Role of Human Capital.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Sana Khanum

**********

[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.

Globalization and Employment Nexus: Moderating Role of Human Capital

PONE-D-22-21757R2

Dear Dr. FAHLEVI,

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,

Jabbar Ul-Haq, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: