PONE-D-23-36186Perceived overqualification as a double-edged sword for employee creativity: The mediating role of job crafting and work withdrawal behaviorPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Jiang,

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 Apr 14 2024 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,

Larissa M. Batrancea

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. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that the datasets presented in this article are not readily available because the data contains personal information that cannot be easily anonymized. Requests to access the datasets should be directed to the corresponding author.

All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information.

This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval.

4. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

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 If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references.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 If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Recommendations for Manuscript ID PONE-D-23-36186 „Perceived overqualification as a double-edged sword for employee creativity: The mediating role of job crafting and work withdrawal behavior” for the PLOS ONE Journal.

General Comments

From my point of view, it is a very interesting topic and simultaneously it seems that to the best of my knowledge is the first empirical study reveals the micro mechanism and boundary conditions of the influence of excessive qualification on employee creativity. This study analyzed 487 valid samples obtained in three stages. The results show that: (1) Job crafting has a positive mediating effect on perceived overqualification and creativity, and the path of the two halves is positive; (2) Work withdrawal behavior plays a negative mediating role between the perceived overqualification and creativity. The path in the first half is positive, and the path in the second half is negative; (3) Organizational identity moderates the effect of perceived overqualification on job crafting and work withdrawal behavior. Specifically, the higher the sense of organizational identification, the stronger the positive effect of perceived overqualification on job crafting and the weaker the positive effect on work withdrawal behavior; (4) Organizational identification moderates the mediating role of job crafting and work withdrawal behavior in the relationship between overqualification and creativity. Specifically, the higher the organizational identity, the stronger the indirect positive effect of perceived overqualification on creativity through job crafting, and the weaker the indirect negative impact of perceived overqualification on creativity through work withdrawal behavior. The study conclusion deepens the research on the mechanism of the influence of the perceived overqualification on employees' work behavior, and provides practical enlightenment for the organization and management of employees with excess qualification.

The paper contains the following sections: Introduction, Theoretical background and hypotheses, Method, Results, Conclusion and Discussion, Theoretical Implications, Practical Implications, Limitations and Directions..

However, I find some recommendations:

1. I suggest to the authors that the last section Conclusions and Policy Implications.

2. The abstract must contain the main purpose of the paper, the research method used in the research and the main contributions.

3. It would be very useful to add the "Introduction" section and the purpose, objectives and hypothesis of the research. I consider that a weak point of the paper is that the authors did not show the novelty of the paper compared to other works. That is why, I consider that the introduction should specify the novelty of the paper compared to other papers published in this area.

4. The research is well based on science and the results are in agreement with the theoretical part. From my point of view, the paper is original and the topic addressed brings added value to the specialized literature regarding economic growth. The paper is well written and easy to read.

5. The research is well based on science and the results are in agreement with the theoretical part. The model applied to the analyzed data is correctly used in the analysis undertaken, it is a strength point of this paper.

6. Authors must specify the software used (STATA, Eviews, SPSS, etc.).

7. It is very important for the authors to analyze the descriptive analysis (with Kurtosis test, Jarque Berra test and interpretation, Skewness and Kurtosis interpretation). In the same time the correlation analysis and the VIF test are very important in this research.

11. I recommend the authors to refer to other recent works indexed in Web of Science, because only some cited works is not enough for a scientific paper. In my opinion, the authors must cite other papers regarding this subject and other subjects such as: tax compliance, economic growth etc. That is why, I suggest that the authors cite papers published in Web of Science Journals, such as:

1. Batrancea,L.M, Kudła,J., Błaszczak,B., Kopyt, M. (2022) Differences in tax evasion attitudes between students and entrepreneurs under the slippery slope framework, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Volume 200,Pages 464-482,ISSN 0167-2681,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.06.017.

2. Batrancea, L.M. Determinants of Economic Growth across the European Union: A Panel Data Analysis on Small and Medium Enterprises. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084797

3. Batrancea, L.M.; Balcı, M.A.; Chermezan, L.; Akgüller, Ö.; Masca, E.S.; Gaban, L. Sources of SMEs Financing and Their Impact on Economic Growth across the European Union: Insights from a Panel Data Study Spanning Sixteen Years. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15318. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215318

4. Batrancea, L.M.; Balcı, M.A.; Akgüller, Ö.; Gaban, L. What Drives Economic Growth across European Countries? A Multimodal Approach. Mathematics 2022, 10, 3660. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10193660

5. Paul-Olivier Klein, Laurent Weill, Bank profitability and economic growth, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Volume 84, 2022, Pages 183-199, ISSN 1062-9769, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2022.01.009.

6. Batrancea, L.; Pop, M.C.; Rathnaswamy, M.M.; Batrancea, I.; Rus, M.-I. An Empirical Investigation on the Transition Process toward a Green Economy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13151. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313151.

7. Alexandre Schwinden Garcia, Roberto Meurer, Effects of a development bank on the profitability of commercial banks: Evidence for Brazil, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, Volume 85, 2022, Pages 246-259, ISSN 1062-9769, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2022.03.008.

8. Batrancea L.M., Nichita R.A., Batrancea I. (2012), Tax Non-Compliance Behavior in the Light of Tax Law Complexity and the Relationship between Authorities and Taxpayers, Scientific Annals of the „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, Economic Sciences Section, vol. 59, nr. 1, 97–106

9. Nichita R.A., Bătrâncea L.M., (2012), The Implications of Tax Morale on Tax Compliance Behavior, Annals of University of Oradea: Economic Science, Tom XXI, nr. 1, 739–744.

10. Batrancea, L. (2021). "Empirical Evidence Regarding the Impact of Economic Growth and Inflation on Economic Sentiment and Household Consumption" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14, no. 7: 336. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14070336,ISSN:1911-8066

11. Batrancea LM, Nichita A, Balcı MA, Akgüller Ö (2023) Empirical investigation on how wellbeing-related infrastructure shapes economic growth: Evidence from the European Union regions. PLoS ONE 18(4): e0283277. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283277, ISSN:1932-6203

12. Pegkas, P., Staikouras, C., & Tsamadias, C. (2019). Does research and development expenditure impact innovation? Evidence from the European Union countries. Journal of Policy Modeling, 41, 1005−1025.

13. Batrancea, L.M. (2022) Determinants of Economic Growth across the European Union: A Panel Data Analysis on Small and Medium Enterprises. Sustainability 2022, 14(8), 4797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084797.

14.

15. Batrancea, L.M., Kudła, J., Błaszczak, B., Kopyt, M. (2023) A dataset on declared tax evasion attitudes of students and entrepreneurs from Poland under the slippery slope framework, Data in Brief,109183, ISSN 2352-3409, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2023.109183.

16. Batrancea, L. M., Nichita, A., De Agostini, R., Batista Narcizo, F., Forte, D., Mamede, S. D. P. N., Roux‐Cesar, A. M., Nedev, B., Vitek, L., Pántya, J., Salamzadeh, A., Nduka, E. K., Kudła, J., Kopyt, M., Pacheco, L., Maldonado, I., Isaga, N., Benk, S., & Budak, T. (2022). A self-employed taxpayer experimental study on trust, power, and tax compliance in eleven countries. Financial Innovation, 8(1), 1-23. [96]. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-022-00404-y, ISSN:2199-4730.

In conclusion, the article should be improve. It should also be enhanced with a review of the literature adequate to the subject and a broader interpretation and commentary of the research results.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Please review your abstract and provide information in regard to your objectives and research methods used

The literature support for your first three hypotheses is not sufficient; similar for H6.

In regard to your methodology, it should include the following information: (1) participants and procedure; (2) the measures that you used; (3) the analysis strategy; (4) the results where you need to enclose descriptive statistics and hypotheses testing. Please add the missing information.

What are the results of your Pilot study?

What software have you been using.

As for your Results chapter, please add literature accepted thresholds for all the measures used.

Please add a summary in regard to your Hypotheses results and see to it in the light of previous research.

Best regards,

Reviewer #3: As stated and in the minor revisions suggested edits, there are minimal issues and the data written is self explanitory. The author understands the information that is being presented to the community; therefore, I offered suggested edits within the first portion of the submission that is being proposed.

Reviewer #4: In the manuscript presented an innovative and interesting topic. The advantage of manuscript is a properly developed research part and an interesting topic.

The results of the study relate to previous research in this field.

The manuscript's advantage is also the inclusion of practical implications and a correct and up-to-date overview of references.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr. David James Wallace

Reviewer #4: 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.

Perceived overqualification as a double-edged sword for employee creativity: The mediating role of job crafting and work withdrawal behavior

PONE-D-23-36186R1

Dear Dr. Jiang,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Larissa M. Batrancea

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Congratulations!

Your paper has been accepted for publication.

Reviewers' comments: