PONE-D-23-15985Job Demands，Job Resources and Postdoctoral Job Satisfaction：An Empirical Study Based on the Data from Nature’s Global Postdoc SurveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Duan,

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.

==============================

Reviewer 1. This paper examines the Job Demands,Job Resources, and Postdoctoral Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study Based on the Data from Nature’s Global Postdoc Survey. The paper is in general not satisfactorily written and lacks novelty and justification for the need of study. I would like to make a few suggestions to improve the contributions of this research.

Abstract

The abstract should reflect the snapshot of the paper. It should be more persuasive. The Abstract lacks originality. Revisit the abstract specifically focusing on the following steps; (Brief glimpse into the topic, Purpose, Methodology, and Practical Implications).

Introduction

The Mechanism of introduction is not appropriate. It must include the territory of the study, niche, and detail about the current research, leading toward the need for this research. It lacks justification for; the need for the study, the selection of the variables, and the relevance of the population/context of the study. Furthermore, the introduction lacks to justify the contribution of this study to Academia and/or Industry, why is it worth studying? What`s new in it and why does it matter? In short, the entire introduction Part of the chapter needs serious attention.

Literature Review

� Under the heading "1. Two-path hypothesis of the influence of job characteristics on post-doctoral job satisfaction” It is mentioned that earlier, studies have been conducted on the same topic in the same context, then the question arises, “What the current study is going to add in it??

� A few references are NOT in APA style, as per the 7th edition. See, For example, on page 10, the last line of the second paragraph.

� What do you mean by this term “In the university field? at page 10

� Hypothesis H4 is contradictory to Hypothesis H2. H2 states that job demands have a negative indirect effect on postdoctoral job satisfaction……. While H4 states that “Postdoctoral job satisfaction is highest with the combination of “high demands-high resources”. Means positively associated…?? Kindly elaborate on how??

� This section contains many grammatical mistakes and typo errors. Kindly proofread.

� The scholar has failed to develop a link between IVs and DV. A number of claims require referencing. Hence, the Literature requires significant rework.

Research Methodology

� Data collection methods, inclusion-exclusion criteria, Justification for sample size, etc. are not properly discussed.

� It is mentioned that “The right questions from the respective portions of the questionnaire were chosen to describe the variables being looked at". HOW??? Is any specific method applied?? Discuss its justification as well.

� No explanation of instrumentation is mentioned. E.g. job satisfaction questionnaire is adopted/adapted from?? Or was either developed??

Statistical Methods and Results

� Why SPSS is used?? And if SPSS, then why the quite older version is used since we have many revisions after SPSS 22.0? Instead, it is recommended to use SEM and SMART-PLS.

� Why two-factor ANOVA is used for mediation??? Can you provide any logical justification for it?

� “Where the regression coefficients are explored in a two-path test with maximum likelihood estimation; and in the test of mediating and moderating effects using the self-help method (Bootstrap Method), What is this? Where is the moderator in the entire study?? How mediation is checked through the self-help method? Etc.

� If SPSS, is used, then why not “Baron and Kenny” OR “Andrew Hayes approach” applied for mediation?

� “The interaction hypothesis of job demands and job resources on postdoctoral job satisfaction” What is the need for all this?? Elaborate on the justification of its relevance.

� “Table 7 Self-help method test for the mediated role of the moderated” What does this table indicate???

� What about the normality of data? Any test applied?? discuss

� The entire section does not have a single reference. The author is supposed to support its results from existing literature.

� In short, this section requires some serious attention.

Discussion and Conclusion

� Discussion should relate or contradict the study finding in light of existing research furthermore why your study found such results; there should be a discussion on results rather than just confirming the results.

� The conclusion of the study should be drafted in light of the objectives of the study. The author should highlight how each of the objectives identified in the research was attained.

Final Evaluation Statement:

The paper contains serious issues regarding, the novelty of the paper, justification of the study, methodology applied, and analysis section, besides, formatting issues like language, sequence, spelling, grammar, and coherence).

Reviewer 2Introduction:

Introduction section focuses primarily on presenting facts and figures concerning the previous studies. It lacks the originality, significance, and contribution of your study. Why your conceptual framework is important to be studied, and how well it articulates the overall purpose of your study? The authors should highlight the role of job demands, resources in affecting the job satisfaction and why it is critical to examine motivational and hindrance mechanism to have deeper insights about the topic. Meanwhile, synchronize your framework with the overarching theory (i.e. JD-R) comprising the conceptual base of your study.

Literature Review:

Literature review section lacks clarity, coherence and relevance. For example, line 7 -12 of first para is supposed to outline two dimensions, however there are so many multi-factors have been highlighted without any due clarity of what your study aims to examine? It seems lack of understanding and objectivity. Likewise, putting citation (i.e. Weiss, Dawis, & England, 1967) in the end doesn’t sound good as it shows your study aims pointing to someone else work.

In second para, you stated that “After controlling for demographic variables, the research on the influencing factors of postdoctoral job satisfaction is primarily focused on a single dimension…………” Which research you are referring about? Please cite it with substantive evidence to support your claim.

In same para, you stated that “Second, the study lacks a better theoretical framework for evaluating and reflecting on postdoctoral job satisfaction from a systematic standpoint…………” which study lacks better theoretical framework? You need to revisit your literature review section it lacks substantive arguments and also have some technical writing issues.

Research Hypothesis:

In hypothesis section, you stated “The first hypothesis is the “dual path” hypothesis, which states that “there are two ways in which employment influences employees: the loss path and the gain path” however, it doesn’t make a sense to test the direct effect of job demands and resources on job satisfaction and call it the loss and gain path. Loss and gain paths were originally formulated to test outcome variables through job engagement and burnout, however testing direct paths to job satisfaction overrule such assumption. Revisit your statement and arguments.

In similar way, your second hypothesis uncovers …….“the buffering hypothesis, which states that job resources can mitigate the negative effects of job demands by mitigating the attrition of employees with high job demands”…….. however, in hypothesis section 2, you hypothesized the mediating role of burnout and engagement. Again it is misleading and vague. Revisit

Hypothesis section 3 aims to examine interaction effect of job resources and demands on job satisfaction. How comes the interaction effect would be carried out on the job satisfaction? Moreover, hypothesis H3a hypothesizes…… “job demands can enhance the positive impact of job resources on postdoctoral work engagement” …… How job demands can enhance this relationship? You haven’t provided any valid justification to this claim. Explain it

Hypothesis 4 is misleading too. How high demand-high resource combination produces the optimum satisfaction although all your arguments have been drawn upon the proposition that high job demands leads to burnout consequences. There is no rationale and explanation to this part as well.

Research model figure 1 doesn’t reflect your study’s hypothetical paths. Why this model is showing the job engagement as mediator between job demands and job satisfaction while burnout between job resources and satisfaction. Though your hypothesis focuses on the loss and gain paths only. Moreover, the interaction path is also missing. Redraw your model based on the proposed hypothetical links

Methodology/Analysis:

No convergent/discriminant validity and reliability assessment or CFA in an alternative case, are being carried out to assess its fit indices or measurement model adequacy.

Several inter-construct correlation values are above 0.60, posing serious concern over the presence of multi-collinearity issues among the variables. Need to re-check them via VIF. There might be some discriminant validity issues as well. Redo this part

H1 hypothesis results proposing the direct path to job satisfaction is missing…………?

Mediation testing is ambiguous and confusing too. In model 1 and 2 of table 4 beta coefficients have been reported while the rest of the models t-values are reported, why? Most importantly you proposed job demands and resources as a composite construct comprising of sub-dimensions throughout your manuscript, however, you have directly tested the effect of sub-dimensions on the outcome variables. It is again showing a serious limitation over the understanding about the objectivity and purpose of your study. Be focused on what actually you are intended to examine.

I suggest to further simplify it by using Hayes process macro to test your mediation result

Interaction effect results and table is missing too…………?

Testing job satisfaction profiles (optimization level) is beyond the scope of your study, you haven’t argued and discuss it in your introduction and hypothesis development section. Why all of sudden it comes to analysis? I would suggest, either you should focus on the mediation and interaction hypothesis or may only choose to build your manuscript around job satisfaction profiling (degree of low-high proposition) assessment.

Discussion:

Discussion section is reasonable compared to rest of the manuscript. I would suggest to build your hypothesis development section in view of your discussion section. Importantly, your discussion is all about the varying degree of influence of sub-dimensions to outcome variables therefore, your hypothesis development should consider all as separate variables then.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2023 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,

Muhammad Fareed, 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. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. 

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

Additional Editor Comments

Dear Author,

Please make the amendments as per the followings:

Reviewer 1

This paper examines the Job Demands,Job Resources, and Postdoctoral Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study Based on the Data from Nature’s Global Postdoc Survey. The paper is in general not satisfactorily written and lacks novelty and justification for the need of study. I would like to make a few suggestions to improve the contributions of this research.

Abstract

The abstract should reflect the snapshot of the paper. It should be more persuasive. The Abstract lacks originality. Revisit the abstract specifically focusing on the following steps; (Brief glimpse into the topic, Purpose, Methodology, and Practical Implications).

Introduction

The Mechanism of introduction is not appropriate. It must include the territory of the study, niche, and detail about the current research, leading toward the need for this research. It lacks justification for; the need for the study, the selection of the variables, and the relevance of the population/context of the study. Furthermore, the introduction lacks to justify the contribution of this study to Academia and/or Industry, why is it worth studying? What`s new in it and why does it matter? In short, the entire introduction Part of the chapter needs serious attention.

Literature Review

� Under the heading "1. Two-path hypothesis of the influence of job characteristics on post-doctoral job satisfaction” It is mentioned that earlier, studies have been conducted on the same topic in the same context, then the question arises, “What the current study is going to add in it??

� A few references are NOT in APA style, as per the 7th edition. See, For example, on page 10, the last line of the second paragraph.

� What do you mean by this term “In the university field? at page 10

� Hypothesis H4 is contradictory to Hypothesis H2. H2 states that job demands have a negative indirect effect on postdoctoral job satisfaction……. While H4 states that “Postdoctoral job satisfaction is highest with the combination of “high demands-high resources”. Means positively associated…?? Kindly elaborate on how??

� This section contains many grammatical mistakes and typo errors. Kindly proofread.

� The scholar has failed to develop a link between IVs and DV. A number of claims require referencing. Hence, the Literature requires significant rework.

Research Methodology

� Data collection methods, inclusion-exclusion criteria, Justification for sample size, etc. are not properly discussed.

� It is mentioned that “The right questions from the respective portions of the questionnaire were chosen to describe the variables being looked at". HOW??? Is any specific method applied?? Discuss its justification as well.

� No explanation of instrumentation is mentioned. E.g. job satisfaction questionnaire is adopted/adapted from?? Or was either developed??

Statistical Methods and Results

� Why SPSS is used?? And if SPSS, then why the quite older version is used since we have many revisions after SPSS 22.0? Instead, it is recommended to use SEM and SMART-PLS.

� Why two-factor ANOVA is used for mediation??? Can you provide any logical justification for it?

� “Where the regression coefficients are explored in a two-path test with maximum likelihood estimation; and in the test of mediating and moderating effects using the self-help method (Bootstrap Method), What is this? Where is the moderator in the entire study?? How mediation is checked through the self-help method? Etc.

� If SPSS, is used, then why not “Baron and Kenny” OR “Andrew Hayes approach” applied for mediation?

� “The interaction hypothesis of job demands and job resources on postdoctoral job satisfaction” What is the need for all this?? Elaborate on the justification of its relevance.

� “Table 7 Self-help method test for the mediated role of the moderated” What does this table indicate???

� What about the normality of data? Any test applied?? discuss

� The entire section does not have a single reference. The author is supposed to support its results from existing literature.

� In short, this section requires some serious attention.

Discussion and Conclusion

� Discussion should relate or contradict the study finding in light of existing research furthermore why your study found such results; there should be a discussion on results rather than just confirming the results.

� The conclusion of the study should be drafted in light of the objectives of the study. The author should highlight how each of the objectives identified in the research was attained.

Final Evaluation Statement:

The paper contains serious issues regarding, the novelty of the paper, justification of the study, methodology applied, and analysis section, besides, formatting issues like language, sequence, spelling, grammar, and coherence).

Reviewer 2

Introduction:

Introduction section focuses primarily on presenting facts and figures concerning the previous studies. It lacks the originality, significance, and contribution of your study. Why your conceptual framework is important to be studied, and how well it articulates the overall purpose of your study? The authors should highlight the role of job demands, resources in affecting the job satisfaction and why it is critical to examine motivational and hindrance mechanism to have deeper insights about the topic. Meanwhile, synchronize your framework with the overarching theory (i.e. JD-R) comprising the conceptual base of your study.

Literature Review:

Literature review section lacks clarity, coherence and relevance. For example, line 7 -12 of first para is supposed to outline two dimensions, however there are so many multi-factors have been highlighted without any due clarity of what your study aims to examine? It seems lack of understanding and objectivity. Likewise, putting citation (i.e. Weiss, Dawis, & England, 1967) in the end doesn’t sound good as it shows your study aims pointing to someone else work.

In second para, you stated that “After controlling for demographic variables, the research on the influencing factors of postdoctoral job satisfaction is primarily focused on a single dimension…………” Which research you are referring about? Please cite it with substantive evidence to support your claim.

In same para, you stated that “Second, the study lacks a better theoretical framework for evaluating and reflecting on postdoctoral job satisfaction from a systematic standpoint…………” which study lacks better theoretical framework? You need to revisit your literature review section it lacks substantive arguments and also have some technical writing issues.

Research Hypothesis:

In hypothesis section, you stated “The first hypothesis is the “dual path” hypothesis, which states that “there are two ways in which employment influences employees: the loss path and the gain path” however, it doesn’t make a sense to test the direct effect of job demands and resources on job satisfaction and call it the loss and gain path. Loss and gain paths were originally formulated to test outcome variables through job engagement and burnout, however testing direct paths to job satisfaction overrule such assumption. Revisit your statement and arguments.

In similar way, your second hypothesis uncovers …….“the buffering hypothesis, which states that job resources can mitigate the negative effects of job demands by mitigating the attrition of employees with high job demands”…….. however, in hypothesis section 2, you hypothesized the mediating role of burnout and engagement. Again it is misleading and vague. Revisit

Hypothesis section 3 aims to examine interaction effect of job resources and demands on job satisfaction. How comes the interaction effect would be carried out on the job satisfaction? Moreover, hypothesis H3a hypothesizes…… “job demands can enhance the positive impact of job resources on postdoctoral work engagement” …… How job demands can enhance this relationship? You haven’t provided any valid justification to this claim. Explain it

Hypothesis 4 is misleading too. How high demand-high resource combination produces the optimum satisfaction although all your arguments have been drawn upon the proposition that high job demands leads to burnout consequences. There is no rationale and explanation to this part as well.

Research model figure 1 doesn’t reflect your study’s hypothetical paths. Why this model is showing the job engagement as mediator between job demands and job satisfaction while burnout between job resources and satisfaction. Though your hypothesis focuses on the loss and gain paths only. Moreover, the interaction path is also missing. Redraw your model based on the proposed hypothetical links

Methodology/Analysis:

No convergent/discriminant validity and reliability assessment or CFA in an alternative case, are being carried out to assess its fit indices or measurement model adequacy.

Several inter-construct correlation values are above 0.60, posing serious concern over the presence of multi-collinearity issues among the variables. Need to re-check them via VIF. There might be some discriminant validity issues as well. Redo this part

H1 hypothesis results proposing the direct path to job satisfaction is missing…………?

Mediation testing is ambiguous and confusing too. In model 1 and 2 of table 4 beta coefficients have been reported while the rest of the models t-values are reported, why? Most importantly you proposed job demands and resources as a composite construct comprising of sub-dimensions throughout your manuscript, however, you have directly tested the effect of sub-dimensions on the outcome variables. It is again showing a serious limitation over the understanding about the objectivity and purpose of your study. Be focused on what actually you are intended to examine.

I suggest to further simplify it by using Hayes process macro to test your mediation result

Interaction effect results and table is missing too…………?

Testing job satisfaction profiles (optimization level) is beyond the scope of your study, you haven’t argued and discuss it in your introduction and hypothesis development section. Why all of sudden it comes to analysis? I would suggest, either you should focus on the mediation and interaction hypothesis or may only choose to build your manuscript around job satisfaction profiling (degree of low-high proposition) assessment.

Discussion:

Discussion section is reasonable compared to rest of the manuscript. I would suggest to build your hypothesis development section in view of your discussion section. Importantly, your discussion is all about the varying degree of influence of sub-dimensions to outcome variables therefore, your hypothesis development should consider all as separate variables then.

[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: 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: This paper examines the Job Demands,Job Resources, and Postdoctoral Job Satisfaction: An Empirical Study Based on the Data from Nature’s Global Postdoc Survey. The paper is in general not satisfactorily written and lacks novelty and justification for the need of study. I would like to make a few suggestions to improve the contributions of this research.

Abstract

The abstract should reflect the snapshot of the paper. It should be more persuasive. The Abstract lacks originality. Revisit the abstract specifically focusing on the following steps; (Brief glimpse into the topic, Purpose, Methodology, and Practical Implications).

Introduction

The Mechanism of introduction is not appropriate. It must include the territory of the study, niche, and detail about the current research, leading toward the need for this research. It lacks justification for; the need for the study, the selection of the variables, and the relevance of the population/context of the study. Furthermore, the introduction lacks to justify the contribution of this study to Academia and/or Industry, why is it worth studying? What`s new in it and why does it matter? In short, the entire introduction Part of the chapter needs serious attention.

Literature Review

� Under the heading "1. Two-path hypothesis of the influence of job characteristics on post-doctoral job satisfaction” It is mentioned that earlier, studies have been conducted on the same topic in the same context, then the question arises, “What the current study is going to add in it??

� A few references are NOT in APA style, as per the 7th edition. See, For example, on page 10, the last line of the second paragraph.

� What do you mean by this term “In the university field? at page 10

� Hypothesis H4 is contradictory to Hypothesis H2. H2 states that job demands have a negative indirect effect on postdoctoral job satisfaction……. While H4 states that “Postdoctoral job satisfaction is highest with the combination of “high demands-high resources”. Means positively associated…?? Kindly elaborate on how??

� This section contains many grammatical mistakes and typo errors. Kindly proofread.

� The scholar has failed to develop a link between IVs and DV. A number of claims require referencing. Hence, the Literature requires significant rework.

Research Methodology

� Data collection methods, inclusion-exclusion criteria, Justification for sample size, etc. are not properly discussed.

� It is mentioned that “The right questions from the respective portions of the questionnaire were chosen to describe the variables being looked at". HOW??? Is any specific method applied?? Discuss its justification as well.

� No explanation of instrumentation is mentioned. E.g. job satisfaction questionnaire is adopted/adapted from?? Or was either developed??

Statistical Methods and Results

� Why SPSS is used?? And if SPSS, then why the quite older version is used since we have many revisions after SPSS 22.0? Instead, it is recommended to use SEM and SMART-PLS.

� Why two-factor ANOVA is used for mediation??? Can you provide any logical justification for it?

� “Where the regression coefficients are explored in a two-path test with maximum likelihood estimation; and in the test of mediating and moderating effects using the self-help method (Bootstrap Method), What is this? Where is the moderator in the entire study?? How mediation is checked through the self-help method? Etc.

� If SPSS, is used, then why not “Baron and Kenny” OR “Andrew Hayes approach” applied for mediation?

� “The interaction hypothesis of job demands and job resources on postdoctoral job satisfaction” What is the need for all this?? Elaborate on the justification of its relevance.

� “Table 7 Self-help method test for the mediated role of the moderated” What does this table indicate???

� What about the normality of data? Any test applied?? discuss

� The entire section does not have a single reference. The author is supposed to support its results from existing literature.

� In short, this section requires some serious attention.

Discussion and Conclusion

� Discussion should relate or contradict the study finding in light of existing research furthermore why your study found such results; there should be a discussion on results rather than just confirming the results.

� The conclusion of the study should be drafted in light of the objectives of the study. The author should highlight how each of the objectives identified in the research was attained.

Final Evaluation Statement:

The paper contains serious issues regarding, the novelty of the paper, justification of the study, methodology applied, and analysis section, besides, formatting issues like language, sequence, spelling, grammar, and coherence).

Reviewer #2: Introduction:

Introduction section focuses primarily on presenting facts and figures concerning the previous studies. It lacks the originality, significance, and contribution of your study. Why your conceptual framework is important to be studied, and how well it articulates the overall purpose of your study? The authors should highlight the role of job demands, resources in affecting the job satisfaction and why it is critical to examine motivational and hindrance mechanism to have deeper insights about the topic. Meanwhile, synchronize your framework with the overarching theory (i.e. JD-R) comprising the conceptual base of your study.

Literature Review:

Literature review section lacks clarity, coherence and relevance. For example, line 7 -12 of first para is supposed to outline two dimensions, however there are so many multi-factors have been highlighted without any due clarity of what your study aims to examine? It seems lack of understanding and objectivity. Likewise, putting citation (i.e. Weiss, Dawis, & England, 1967) in the end doesn’t sound good as it shows your study aims pointing to someone else work.

In second para, you stated that “After controlling for demographic variables, the research on the influencing factors of postdoctoral job satisfaction is primarily focused on a single dimension…………” Which research you are referring about? Please cite it with substantive evidence to support your claim.

In same para, you stated that “Second, the study lacks a better theoretical framework for evaluating and reflecting on postdoctoral job satisfaction from a systematic standpoint…………” which study lacks better theoretical framework? You need to revisit your literature review section it lacks substantive arguments and also have some technical writing issues.

Research Hypothesis:

In hypothesis section, you stated “The first hypothesis is the “dual path” hypothesis, which states that “there are two ways in which employment influences employees: the loss path and the gain path” however, it doesn’t make a sense to test the direct effect of job demands and resources on job satisfaction and call it the loss and gain path. Loss and gain paths were originally formulated to test outcome variables through job engagement and burnout, however testing direct paths to job satisfaction overrule such assumption. Revisit your statement and arguments.

In similar way, your second hypothesis uncovers …….“the buffering hypothesis, which states that job resources can mitigate the negative effects of job demands by mitigating the attrition of employees with high job demands”…….. however, in hypothesis section 2, you hypothesized the mediating role of burnout and engagement. Again it is misleading and vague. Revisit

Hypothesis section 3 aims to examine interaction effect of job resources and demands on job satisfaction. How comes the interaction effect would be carried out on the job satisfaction? Moreover, hypothesis H3a hypothesizes…… “job demands can enhance the positive impact of job resources on postdoctoral work engagement” …… How job demands can enhance this relationship? You haven’t provided any valid justification to this claim. Explain it

Hypothesis 4 is misleading too. How high demand-high resource combination produces the optimum satisfaction although all your arguments have been drawn upon the proposition that high job demands leads to burnout consequences. There is no rationale and explanation to this part as well.

Research model figure 1 doesn’t reflect your study’s hypothetical paths. Why this model is showing the job engagement as mediator between job demands and job satisfaction while burnout between job resources and satisfaction. Though your hypothesis focuses on the loss and gain paths only. Moreover, the interaction path is also missing. Redraw your model based on the proposed hypothetical links

Methodology/Analysis:

No convergent/discriminant validity and reliability assessment or CFA in an alternative case, are being carried out to assess its fit indices or measurement model adequacy.

Several inter-construct correlation values are above 0.60, posing serious concern over the presence of multi-collinearity issues among the variables. Need to re-check them via VIF. There might be some discriminant validity issues as well. Redo this part

H1 hypothesis results proposing the direct path to job satisfaction is missing…………?

Mediation testing is ambiguous and confusing too. In model 1 and 2 of table 4 beta coefficients have been reported while the rest of the models t-values are reported, why? Most importantly you proposed job demands and resources as a composite construct comprising of sub-dimensions throughout your manuscript, however, you have directly tested the effect of sub-dimensions on the outcome variables. It is again showing a serious limitation over the understanding about the objectivity and purpose of your study. Be focused on what actually you are intended to examine.

I suggest to further simplify it by using Hayes process macro to test your mediation result

Interaction effect results and table is missing too…………?

Testing job satisfaction profiles (optimization level) is beyond the scope of your study, you haven’t argued and discuss it in your introduction and hypothesis development section. Why all of sudden it comes to analysis? I would suggest, either you should focus on the mediation and interaction hypothesis or may only choose to build your manuscript around job satisfaction profiling (degree of low-high proposition) assessment.

Discussion:

Discussion section is reasonable compared to rest of the manuscript. I would suggest to build your hypothesis development section in view of your discussion section. Importantly, your discussion is all about the varying degree of influence of sub-dimensions to outcome variables therefore, your hypothesis development should consider all as separate variables then.

**********

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: Muhammad Shahid Shams

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Farhan Mehboob

**********

[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: comments file.docx

PONE-D-23-15985R1Job Demands，Job Resources and Postdoctoral Job Satisfaction：An Empirical Study Based on the Data from 2020 Nature’s Global Postdoc SurveyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. XinXing Duan,

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.

==============================

Dear Author,Please make the ammendments as suggested by the both reviewers. Reviewer#1

The Authors have fully incorporated the comments suggested.

There is a minor issue in the interaction hypothesis development section. Like "H3b: Job resources can reduce the negative effect of job demands on postdoctoral burnout" is erroneously stated. It should be "Job resources can reduce the positive effect of job demands on postdoctoral burnout" as job demands are generally positively associated with the burnout outcomes.

Moreover, I would suggest to cite few lines from the discussion section of the paper referred below to further clarify the coping and gain spiral mechanism for your interaction hypothesis.

Mehboob, F., Othman, N., Fareed, M., & Raza, A. (2022). Change Appraisals and Job Crafting as Foundation to Inculcate Support for Change: A Dual Manifestation. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 24, 207-229.

Reviewer#2

I have completed the review of the article, and I can confirm that all the suggested changes have been diligently incorporated. However, there is one additional comment I would like to make here;

Please use the following article to justify the benchmark being met in confirmatory factor analysis for Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and AVE values:

Abboh, U. A., Majid, A. H., Fareed, M., & Abdussalaam, I. I. (2022). High-performance work practices lecturers’ performance connection: Does working condition matter? Management in Education, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206211051468

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 25 2023 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,

Muhammad Fareed, Ph.D

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:

Dear Author,

Please make the amendments as suggested by the reviewer.

[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: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

**********

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: I have completed the review of the article, and I can confirm that all the suggested changes have been diligently incorporated. However, there is one additional comment I would like to make here;

Please use the following article to justify the benchmark being met in confirmatory factor analysis for Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability, and AVE values:

Abboh, U. A., Majid, A. H., Fareed, M., & Abdussalaam, I. I. (2022). High-performance work practices lecturers’ performance connection: Does working condition matter? Management in Education, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206211051468

Reviewer #2: The Authors have fully incorporated the comments suggested.

There is a minor issue in the interaction hypothesis development section. Like

"H3b: Job resources can reduce the negative effect of job demands on postdoctoral burnout" is erroneously stated. It should be "Job resources can reduce the positive effect of job demands on postdoctoral burnout" as job demands are generally positively associated with the burnout outcomes.

Moreover, I would suggest to cite few lines from the discussion section of the paper referred below to further clarify the coping and gain spiral mechanism for your interaction hypothesis.

Mehboob, F., Othman, N., Fareed, M., & Raza, A. (2022). Change Appraisals and Job Crafting as Foundation to Inculcate Support for Change: A Dual Manifestation. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 24, 207-229.

Rest is Ok. I'm wishing you all the best for your publication.

**********

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: Yes: Dr. Farhan Mehboob

**********

[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: PLOS1 review report.docx

Job Demands，Job Resources and Postdoctoral Job Satisfaction：An Empirical Study Based on the Data from 2020 Nature’s Global Postdoc Survey

PONE-D-23-15985R2

Dear Dr. Xinxing Duan,

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,

Muhammad Fareed, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear Authors,

Thank you for making the corrections as per reviewers' comments.

We are delighted to inform you that your article is accepted.

Thank you.

Reviewers' comments: