Labor market segmentation and the gender wage gap: Evidence from China

Mingming Li; Yuan Tang; Keyan Jin

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0299355

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionSeptember 10, 2023
10 Sep 2023 Author Response Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: rebuttal letter .docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299355.r001
23 Oct 2023 Decision Letter - Keumseok Peter Koh, Editor PONE-D-23-29332Labor market segmentation and the gender wage gap: evidence from ChinaPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 07 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, Keumseok Peter Koh Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: 1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 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. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data). 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. [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 ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: 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 ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The research paper addresses a pressing issue of the gender wage gap in 21st century China, which is both relevant and important for policymakers, economists, and scholars interested in labor market dynamics and gender equality. The abstract effectively summarizes the key elements of the research, including the problem statement, data sources, methodology, and findings. It provides a concise overview of the study's scope and findings. Utilizing micro-level data from 2004, 2008, and 2013 is a strong point as it allows for a longitudinal analysis of the gender wage gap, offering insights into its trends over time. Employing a selection bias correction based on the multinomial logit model is a rigorous methodological approach and adds credibility to the research. The research appropriately identifies the differences in the gender wage gap within the public sector, private sector, and collective economy. This sector-specific analysis adds depth to the study. Suggestions for Improvement: The study should explicitly state the primary research question or objective. This would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the research's focus. While the study mentions the use of the multinomial logit model, recentered influence function regression, and Brown wage decomposition, consider providing a brief explanation or references for these methodologies. This would be beneficial for readers who may not be familiar with these techniques. Define the term "collective economy" to ensure clarity for readers who may not be familiar with this concept. If available, include information on the statistical significance of findings, such as p-values or confidence intervals, to assess the robustness of conclusions. Ensure that the study is organized logically and follows a clear structure, including the problem statement, data and methodology, key findings, and policy recommendations. This will make it easier for readers to follow the flow of the research. Please add these relevant references: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12020242 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-02011-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00365-w https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.012 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097068 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137677 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020931899 https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410782 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118787 Lastly, review the study for grammar, punctuation, and typographical errors to ensure it is well-written and polished. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299355.r002
Revision 1
21 Nov 2023 Author Response Dear Editor and Reviewers: Thank you for your letter and comments concerning my manuscript entitled “Labor Market Segmentation and the Gender Wage Gap: Evidence from China”. Those comments are extremely valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper as well as the significance of our research. In terms of format, we have carefully revised the text, tables, figures, and file names according to the requirements of Plos One. In terms of content, we have seriously read the comments and recommended articles, and revised the corresponding parts according to the reviewer opinions. Finally, we used English touch-up services to ensure that the full text was free of grammatical errors and its fluency. The main responses to comments of editor and the reviewer are as flows. To Editor The Lines mentioned below are referring to those in Manuscript with no tracks. Q1: Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: 'Response to Reviewers', 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes', 'Manuscript'. A2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have finish now renamed all the files with the according to PLOS ONE requirements. Q2: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. A2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have carefully read the links to documents as mentioned in your email shown below and adjusted manuscript and figures according to their format requirement. Now all the text, tables and figures match the PLOS ONE's style. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf Q3: Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. A3: Thank you for your valuable comment. At the end of the manuscript, we put the Supporting Information. according to requirement of Plos One (line 818 – line 821): S1 Text, detailed introduction to the Collective Economy; S2 Table, Industry-Classification Table; S3 Dataset, the data used in this article. To Reviewer The Lines mentioned below are referring to those in Manuscript with no tracks. Q1: The research paper addresses a pressing issue of the gender wage gap in 21st century China, which is both relevant and important for policymakers, economists, and scholars interested in labor market dynamics and gender equality. The abstract effectively summarizes the key elements of the research, including the problem statement, data sources, methodology, and findings. It provides a concise overview of the study's scope and findings. Utilizing micro-level data from 2004, 2008, and 2013 is a strong point as it allows for a longitudinal analysis of the gender wage gap, offering insights into its trends over time. Employing a selection bias correction based on the multinomial logit model is a rigorous methodological approach and adds credibility to the research. The research appropriately identifies the differences in the gender wage gap within the public sector, private sector, and collective economy. This sector-specific analysis adds depth to the study. A1: Thank you for your valuable comment. Thank you very much for your positive opinion and giving us this opportunity to make revisions. According to your comments, we have adjusted the introduction section, introduced more on collective economy, given more details about methodologies on measuring inequality, supplement matched important articles. Finally, we double checked the structure using proofreading service to check the grammar, punctuation, and typographical errors to ensure our whole article is well-written and is suitable for publication. Now we believe our paper can make a substantial contribution to literature on gender inequality in China. Q2: The study should explicitly state the primary research question or objective. This would provide readers with a clearer understanding of the research's focus. A2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We carefully revised the first two paragraphs (line 34 – line 58). In the first paragraph, we introduce the wage inequality situation shortly, and next, we point out directly that now “the widening gender wage gap has gradually shifted toward sector segmentation theory and related empirical studies”. Further, we briefly introduce why sector segmentation is important in China and suggest systematic research on it currently in China. In last sentence, we directly show our object “this paper tries to understand the role of sector segmentation in the gender wage gap and its change trend in the context of China, addressing the limitations of current research”. Q3: While the study mentions the use of the multinomial logit model, recentered influence function regression, and Brown wage decomposition, consider providing a brief explanation or references for these methodologies. This would be beneficial for readers who may not be familiar with these techniques. A3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We carefully adjust empirical methods part to make readers better understand for these methodologies (line 472 – line 573). First, we explain why we use logarithmic form in basic wage function (line 479 – line 481). Then we detail the reasons why it is necessary to use of the multinomial logit model rather using traditional Heckman sample selection model (line 489 – line 496), which is one of our contributions to the literature gap. Third, we further introduce the function of recentered influence function (RIF) model and its regression (line 520 – line 530). Lastly, we introduce and explain how Brown decomposition (line 545 – line 550) can help us to understand the wage gaps by sector segmentation. Q4: Define the term "collective economy" to ensure clarity for readers who may not be familiar with this concept. A4: Thank you for your valuable comment. "Collective Economy" is a very important concept, and we now add much more information about it. In introduction section, we supplement detailed information about the definition of collective economy (line 79 – line 100) to help the reader understand this kind of economy easily under Chinses context. Further, we put more information, especially the characteristics of collective economy in Appendix (supporting information as required by Plos One). Q5: If available, include information on the statistical significance of findings, such as p-values or confidence intervals, to assess the robustness of conclusions. A5: Thank you for your valuable comment. We carefully check each table (table 1 -table 5) to make sure that the readers can understand the tables easily. For table 1 – table 2, we double check the data accuracy. For table 3, we put P-value as the bottom line of the table. For table 4 – table 5, as there is not enough place to put P-value and confidence intervals, we make it much clearer in the table note that “Standard error is in parentheses and * p < 0.1, p < 0.05, * p < 0.01” to help the readers to calculate T-value using the regression coefficient/standard error. Based on the T-value, the reader can determine the p-value accordingly easily by themselves. Q6: Ensure that the study is organized logically and follows a clear structure, including the problem statement, data and methodology, key findings, and policy recommendations. This will make it easier for readers to follow the flow of the research. A6: Thank you for your valuable comment. Combing with your suggest and the format requirement of Plos One, now the article is well-structured with following sections: Introduction, Sector Segmentation in China, Literature review, Data and methodology, Empirical Research Results and Discussion, Conclusion. Q7: Please add these relevant references: https://doi.org/10.3390/sym12020242 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-020-02011-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-019-00365-w https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.11.012 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097068 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137677 https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020931899 https://doi.org/10.3390/su151410782 https://doi.org/10.3390/su15118787 A7: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have read these important literatures and believe the experience mentioned in theses article can be highly appreciated. Now we cite these articles into our research in different sections. The places of citation can be checked by corresponding reference number. Q8: Lastly, review the study for grammar, punctuation, and typographical errors to ensure it is well-written and polished. A8: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have used the professional proofreading service and double checked the structure to guarantee there is no grammar, punctuation, and typographical errors. Now whole article is fully polished and is suitable for the further publication. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299355.r003
9 Feb 2024 Decision Letter - Keumseok Peter Koh, Editor Labor Market Segmentation and the Gender Wage Gap: Evidence from China PONE-D-23-29332R1 Dear Dr. Li, 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, Keumseok Peter Koh 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: 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 ****** 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: 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 ****** 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: (No Response) ****** 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 ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299355.r004
Formally Accepted
18 Mar 2024 Acceptance Letter - Keumseok Peter Koh, Editor PONE-D-23-29332R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Li, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Keumseok Peter Koh Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299355.r005

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .