PONE-D-22-19557Can Digital Skill Protect against Job Displacement Risk Caused by Artificial Intelligence? Empirical Evidence from 701 Detailed OccupationsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bo Tang,

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 Sep 26 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,

Carlos Alberto Zúniga-González, Ph.D

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. In order to meet journal requirements for reporting and reproducibility, at this time we request that you please update the Methods section to report the original source of the data and the methods used to collect it in sufficient detail for another researcher to access the same data in the same manner. Please ensure that you include a statement specifying whether the collection and analysis method complied with the terms and conditions of the data source.

We look forward to hearing from you.

3. 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:

Dear authors, the manuscript is interesting with Digital Skill Protect against Job Displacement Risk Caused by Artificial Intelligence?, I would like you clarify the question of reviewers. I suggest you some reference that may to add in introduction, review literature.

[1] Zúniga-Gonzalez, C.A. (2021). The role of the mediator and the student in the new educational scenarios: COVID-19. Electronic Journal Quality in Higher Education, 12(2), 279 - 294.

https://doi.org/10.22458/caes.v12i2.3730

[2] Bermúdez-León, D. S., & Zúniga-Gonzalez, C. A. (2016). Information and communication technologies (ICT) in response to educational needs in rural areas in Nicaragua. Rev. Iberoam. Bioecon. Climate Change, 2(4), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.5377/ribcc.v2i4.5931

[3] Blanco-Orozco, N., Arce-Díaz, E., & Zúñiga-Gonzáles, C. (2015). Integral assessment (financial, economic, social, environmental and productivity) of using bagasse and fossil fuels in power generation in Nicaragua. Revista Tecnología en Marcha, 28(4), 94-107. DOI 10.18845/tm.v28i4.2447 https://publons.com/publon/32281799/

[4] Zuniga González, C. A. (2020). Total factor productivity growth in agriculture: Malmquist index analysis of 14 countries, 1979-2008. REICE: Revista Electrónica De Investigación En Ciencias Económicas, 8(16), 68–97. https://doi.org/10.5377/reice.v8i16.10661

[5] Zuniga-Gonzalez, Carlos Alberto (2021), “Total factor productivity in the INTA Chinandega rice variety”, Mendeley Data, V2, doi: 10.17632/76m7p7mvsg.2 https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/76m7p7mvsg/2

[6] González, C. A. Z. (2011). Technical efficiency of organic fertilizer in small farms of Nicaragua: 1998-2005. African Journal of Business Management, 5(3), 967-973. https://publons.com/publon/11272633/

[7] Dios-Palomares, R., Alcaide, D., Diz, J., Jurado, M., Prieto, A., Morantes, M., & Zúñiga, C. A. (2015). Analysis of the efficiency of farming systems in Latin America and the Caribbean considering environmental issues. Revista Cientifica, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad del Zulia, 25(1), 43-50. https://publons.com/publon/3106827/

[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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: Q1: The authors clearly lay out the main hypotheses of the article, and detail the methodology used to test each of these.

Q2: “I don’t know” was selected because labor statistics fall outside the reviewer’s area of expertise. However, it is noted that the authors' statistical methods and underlying literature are explained in detail, and that for added rigor, authors conducted additional analysis with alternative displacement risk measures to confirm robustness of results. Some of the statistical methods and rationale (e.g. robustness analyses) are described in the results section; it would be good to rearrange the sections so that all analytical methods are presented together. It may also be helpful to shorten some of the tables (e.g. table 4) to focus on the most-affected categories, and include the full list in supplements.

Q3: Key variables from data sources are included in tables, and publicly-available data sources have been listed.

Q4:

The introduction and literature review sections are clear and compelling, even to an audience with limited expertise in the fields of AI and labor. However, the discussion and conclusion sections were less grounded in practical implications of the research. Given the relevance of this paper, it would be good to strengthen these sections by expounding on some of the recommendations:

- For example, a key recommendation is the need to develop more digital skills, and it is stated that the potential impact of these “cannot be under-estimated”. From the literature reviewed, could you provide a couple of examples to illustrate the effect of digital skills on occupational impacts of displacement risk from AI, especially for the most affected sectors?

- Active labor market policies are another example of a recommendation that would be enhanced by data-based examples, even if drawn from a limited number/span of studies.

- Lack of individual level data prevents understanding of other social factors that may affect findings and recommendations, as highlighted in the discussion and conclusion sections. These factors might also contribute to heterogeneity. If such data is available for any of the sectors studied, a deeper dive into this aspect could help to illustrate the interplay between social factors and observed impacts of displacement risk on occupational wages and employment.

- It would be good to discuss the findings of the robustness analysis.

- Minor copy-edits in a few places are needed.

This was an interesting and educational paper; the reviewer is keen to reflect more on its applications to their field of work (health) and looks forward to reading the published manuscript in future.

Reviewer #2: The author of the article presented showed his methodology and database and obtained results that compared his hypotheses. Specifically. The author found that the regression results demonstrate that displacement risk negatively impacted occupational wage and occupational employment;suggesting that AI has a greater impact on occupational wages in higher occupational level.Therefore, I believe that the information presented has an appropriate methodological support for its publication.

**********

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: Paula Ihozo Akugizibwe

Reviewer #2: Yes: Napoleon Vicente Blanco Orozco

**********

[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.

Can digital skill protect against job displacement risk caused by artificial intelligence? empirical evidence from 701 detailed occupations

PONE-D-22-19557R1

Dear Dr. Tang,

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,

Bing Xue, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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)

**********

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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: 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 Response)

**********

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

**********

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: Congratulations to the authors on this thorough and timely paper. My comments have largely been addressed although more could still be done to strengthen the discussion, given the importance of these recommendations. For example, in the scoping review cited under the health example (Jimenez 2020), over half the studies were from before 2005. There is literature (one example: Nazeha 2020 "A Digitally Competent Health Workforce: Scoping Review of Educational Frameworks") that cites more recent and compelling data, as well as an overview of current policies and educational efforts, that could give the authors' recommendation more weight. That said, the stated aim of this paper was "to provide empirical evidence for implementing technical and vocational education" and that aim is achieved through the analysis, so would take this recommendation as a "nice to have" rather than a prerequisite for publication.

Some other, very minor edits for grammar and syntax are suggested below:

Line 47: add "the" between "over" and "human right"

Line 99: edit "dominant role to transmit" --> "dominant role in transmitting"

Line 102: add "are" between "technologies" and "utilized"

Line 106: suggest a fullstop after "usage", or syntax edit

Lines 125 - 126: suggest editing to "AI technology skills are in demand..."

Line 255: suggest change "counteraction" to "counteractive" role

Line 272: suggest removing "according to"

Line 280: suggest removing "the" before "more details"

Line 292: suggest editing to "The above results can be explained..."

Line 297: suggest editing "failing" to "fail"

Line 324/325: suggest editing "their more efficiency on information..." to "their increased efficiency with"

Line 326/327: this sentence was a bit confusinge: is it saying that 14.5% of workers with higher digital skills change jobs often, compared to 10.3% of workers with fewer digital competencies? please clarify wording.

**********

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: Paula Ihozo Akugizibwe

**********