PONE-D-23-39644Path of Career Planning and Employment Strategy Based on Deep Learning in the Information AgePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

• Please address all comments raised by the reviewers. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 18 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,

Kashif Ali, 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. Please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. For studies reporting research involving human participants, PLOS ONE requires authors to confirm that this specific study was reviewed and approved by an institutional review board (ethics committee) before the study began. Please provide the specific name of the ethics committee/IRB that approved your study, or explain why you did not seek approval in this case.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

3. In the online submission form you indicate that your data is not available for proprietary reasons and have provided a contact point for accessing this data. Please note that your current contact point is a co-author on this manuscript. According to our Data Policy, the contact point must not be an author on the manuscript and must be an institutional contact, ideally not an individual. Please revise your data statement to a non-author institutional point of contact, such as a data access or ethics committee, and send this to us via return email. Please also include contact information for the third party organization, and please include the full citation of where the data can be found.

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

[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

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 study idea is novel and holds potential for publication; however, there are several points that need consideration before acceptance. Firstly, the author should adhere to a standard format for the study, incorporating rationale, research questions based on identified gaps, and the study structure in the introduction section. Secondly, in the literature review, the author should formulate hypotheses based on the identified gaps. Thirdly, the methodology section appears significantly weak. The researcher has chosen an “experimental design” without proper justification or literature support. It is crucial for the researcher to explain the chosen experimental design, providing a detailed process and supporting literature. This should include information on how the experiments were conducted, control variables, and the overall methodology. Lastly, the article lacks clarity on how the data were analyzed and what statistical tests were employed before reaching a conclusion. In summary, substantial improvements are needed for the article to meet the standards for acceptance.

Reviewer #2: In the first paragraph of introduction well explained but there is a lack of literature support and evidence.

Include recent literature evidence.

Well explained the concepts career planning, deep learning and employment strategy but in this study there is a need to explore the relationship between these variables.

Need to explain what is an employment strategy and its significance in career planning.

Explain clearly how deep learning helps to plan career with literature evidence and include more empirical evidence.

Where is an objective of the study?

Provide clarity on methodology applied in the study i.e which method used or applied to analyse the data and how you choose respondents which method selected to select respondents.

Mention the role of universities to mould career and employment strategies which boosts the study.

Missing clarity on relation between career planning and deep learning. Provide clarity on it. Explain how deep learning techniques helps students to plan their career.

How this study correlates job hopping with deep learning as job hopping relates individual psychological state of taking decision on job where as deep learning is a software tool.

Career planning is a process of planning one’s career. How deep learning will act as a suitable tool to create employment to students according to their preferences.

Already there exist a number of employment online platforms integrating employees and employers. What is the strategy that distinct other online platforms from that of the proposed website in the study.

Reviewer #3: I appreciate the opportunity to review this manuscript, which addresses a topic pertinent to modern educational research. However, there are several areas where the manuscript does not meet the scholarly standards expected of academic papers.

1Introduction

The current introduction lacks essential content. While it outlines the background of deep learning, it fails to provide a clear definition, identify the research gap, or articulate the novelty of the study. The introduction should also offer an explanation of the research methodology and data sources used. Given the focus on university students’ career planning and employment strategy, a rationale for selecting this specific group for study should be included.

I suggest that the authors begin the introduction with a definition of deep learning.

Literature Support

The article lacks sufficient literature support. For example, the following statement is missing corresponding references:

"Tavabie J A studied career planning for the non-clinical workforce, that is, opportunities to develop a sustainable workforce in primary care.

Research showed that the path of career planning and employment strategy based on deep learning in the information age can better help unemployed people understand career planning and formulate employment strategies to finally choose a correct job."

2 Career Planning and Employment Strategies in the Information Age of Deep Learning

This section is intended to summarize existing literature on deep learning in career planning, but it does not appear to serve this purpose.

Additionally, a significant portion of this section is dedicated to explaining the Deep Learning Mode, which seems only tangentially related to the main topic.

3 Experiment Design and Validation

The research methods described in this section lack theoretical grounding, and there is insufficient detail regarding the acquisition of data from the two schools, observation periods, and whether the experiments were conducted by the researchers or used publicly available data.

The manuscript does not provide details about the survey content or the number of responses collected.

If the two schools differ significantly in size or have not been adequately exposed to deep learning, the comparative results lack credibility.

4Conclusions

The conclusions are overly simplistic and do not provide an adequate summary of the research or a comparison with existing studies.

**********

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: Yes: Dr Prabir Chandra Padhy

Reviewer #3: 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.

PONE-D-23-39644R1Path of Career Planning and Employment Strategy Based on Deep Learning in the Information AgePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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 May 20 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,

Kashif Ali, 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:==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

• Please address all comments and suggestions raised by the reviewers.

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

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Dear author,

I would like to express my appreciation for your dedication and hard work in addressing the queries raised during the peer review. While the quality of your manuscript has improved, I still believe there are a few points that must be incorporated before the article can be accepted for publication in the PLOS One journal.

Firstly, the introduction should encompass background information, the research problem, proposed solutions, study objectives, and support from prior literature in a concise and synthesized manner. Although you have made improvements, the article remains quite lengthy. It would be beneficial to transfer additional conceptual details to the literature review section.

Secondly, in the literature review, you have proposed hypotheses, but they are not presented in a standard format. I would suggest consulting relevant articles or books on how to develop hypotheses effectively.

Thirdly, it is essential to develop hypotheses and articulate each one at the end of its corresponding relationship, along with justifications and identified gaps. This can be incorporated into the literature review section or presented under a new heading, such as "Development of Hypotheses."

Fourthly, the frequent use of the word "will" has been noted throughout the manuscript. To enhance clarity and readability, it is advisable to avoid repetitive use of "will," considering that the study has already been conducted and submitted for publication. Additionally, seeking the assistance of a professional language editor may further improve the article's language quality and overall coherence.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the revisions submitted to your manuscript. However, I have a few concerns that I believe need to be further clarified to enhance the manuscript's quality.

Response to Reviewers' Comments:

I find the responses to the reviewers' comments somewhat unclear. There appears to be a lack of specific, targeted explanations for the points raised by each reviewer. Instead, the responses seem to be generalized. It would be beneficial for the manuscript if you could provide more detailed, point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers' comments, clarifying how you have addressed their individual concerns.

Literature References:

Regarding the addition of literature references, there are two main issues that I have identified:

The specific references that have been added have not been communicated to us. It would be helpful to have a list of the new references included in the revision.

Upon reviewing the revised manuscript, I noticed that only two references are highlighted in red. Given the complexity of the paper, I am concerned whether the total of 24 references cited is sufficient to support the argumentation. Please consider whether additional relevant literature should be included to adequately frame your research within the current body of knowledge.

Methodology and Relevance to Career Planning:

The manuscript provides a complex introduction to the deep learning model but does not clearly articulate its relevance to Career Planning. If one of the schools in the comparison is using deep learning, it is important to discuss how this relates to the methodological approach described. Furthermore, a more detailed explanation of why this model was chosen and its significance to the study's objectives would be beneficial.

Data Availability and Analysis:

I note that the questionnaire and data used in the manuscript have not been provided. According to PLOS ONE's requirements, the availability of raw data is a critical aspect of the submission. Please ensure that the original dataset is made accessible in accordance with the journal's policies.

However, it is possible that my system does not show the raw data and the content of the questionnaire.

Additionally, I have concerns about the data analysis. The figures presented suggest a simple statistical approach; however, it is unclear if this approach is sufficient for the complexity of the questions being addressed. Please provide more information on the data analysis methods used and consider whether a more sophisticated analysis might better support the findings.

questionnaire and Response Rate:

You have now provided the details regarding the s questionnaire and the number of responses collected, which is appreciated. However, it remains unclear how the size similarities between the two schools might impact the study's findings or the generalizability of the results. A brief discussion on this matter would be valuable

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[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: Review.docx

PONE-D-23-39644R2Path of Career Planning and Employment Strategy Based on Deep Learning in the Information AgePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

• I have gone through the reviewer comments, few aspects are very important, hypotheses should not develop in introduction. Please read the prior literature and follow them to craft the introduction, and hypotheses development. 2nd reviewer raised major concerns related to deep learning. Please address and justify the comments.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 02 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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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: Partly

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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 #3: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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: Though the author has made changes in response to the reviewers' queries, these changes seem superficial. For instance, the author was asked to revise the literature review section; however, the hypotheses are presented in the introduction, which is also confusing. Similarly, the author was instructed to move identical or additional information to the literature review section, but it was instead relocated to the methods section. Moreover, the article lacks a proper literature review section. Additionally, it is unclear how the author has tested the proposed hypotheses. Details about the study variables are provided, but there is no supporting literature, undermining the acceptance of these details without identifying gaps in prior research. Overall, it appears that the author did not adequately address the reviewers' suggestions, resulting in considerable confusion regarding the article's structure and organization. The author seems to need a better understanding of the fundamental components of an academic article and their purposes.

Reviewer #3: I am writing to address the issues previously raised in my review. Despite the responses provided, I remain unconvinced.

1.Data Availability Policy

According to the information available on the journal's website, it is mandatory to make the data publicly accessible:

The following policy applies to all PLOS journals, unless otherwise noted.

Introduction

PLOS journals require authors to make all data necessary to replicate their study’s findings publicly available without restriction at the time of publication. When specific legal or ethical restrictions prohibit public sharing of a data set, authors must indicate how others may obtain access to the data.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability

“”author Answer: Thank you for your opinion. Since this paper is based on field survey data, the original data is private and does not support public display and query.“”

2. Inappropriate Hypothesis Integration:

Incorporating the hypothesis within the introduction section is highly unorthodox and not acceptable for a scholarly manuscript. This approach detracts from the academic rigor expected in a PLOS ONE submission.

3. Insufficient References:

The manuscript contains only 29 references, which is inadequate for the scope of the research. A comprehensive literature review is essential for establishing the validity and context of your study.

4.Misunderstanding of Deep Learning Concepts！

The most critical issue lies in your misinterpretation of the concept of "deep learning." As explained: Deep Learning in Education vs. AI: In the field of education, "deeper learning" refers to an educational approach that emphasizes students’ deep understanding of core academic content, higher-order thinking skills, and the quality of learning. It focuses on students' active engagement and the application of knowledge in real-world scenarios to prepare them for future societal challenges. In contrast, in the field of artificial intelligence, "deep learning" is a machine learning technique based on artificial neural networks, particularly those with multiple hidden layers. It involves training models using large datasets and complex algorithms to accomplish tasks such as speech recognition, image recognition, and natural language processing. Despite the similar names, they are fundamentally different:

Deeper Learning in Education: Focuses on students' deep understanding and application of knowledge, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

Deep Learning in AI: A machine learning technique utilizing deep neural networks to automatically learn features and patterns from data.

The manuscript erroneously applies the AI concept of deep learning to educational research without clarifying how it pertains to the educational context. Furthermore, you have not demonstrated how the two schools in your study are implementing AI-based deep learning in vocational education. Considering the current educational landscape in China, it is highly improbable that such advanced teaching methodologies are in place, and the relevant educators are likely not equipped with the necessary expertise.

Additionally the manuscript fails to provide an accurate neural network structure that could appropriately explain the research problem in the context of AI-based deep learning.

**********

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 #3: 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.

PONE-D-23-39644R3Path of Career Planning and Employment Strategy Based on Deep Learning in the Information AgePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

• Dear authors, address all the comments of reviewers, especially reviewer that reject your manuscript. I'm not repeating the comments again, please pay attention to address them properly. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: I am writing to express my deep disappointment that the author has not taken the reviewers' comments seriously. This is the third revision submitted to PLOS One, yet it still fails to address the valuable feedback provided.

Peer review is a critical service to the scientific community, requiring significant time to read, analyze, and provide constructive feedback. The author must recognize that publishing in an open-access journal, particularly PLOS One, does not mean compromising on the rigor and quality of research. Adhering to journal requirements is essential for publication in such a reputable journal.

The author has evidently not invested the necessary time to incorporate the suggested changes. For example, there is still no literature review section. The paper is divided into four sections—Introduction, Theoretical Framework, Empirical Analysis, and Conclusions—but lacks a comprehensive literature review (refer to line 125, noting the absence of page numbers). The literature review could be combined with the theoretical framework.

Moreover, the three hypotheses presented (lines 606-613) are isolated and lack context, making it difficult for readers to understand their basis. Additionally, there is no section detailing the materials and methods, which hinders readers from replicating the study under similar conditions. Although the author has replied to my previous comment on how the hypotheses were tested (see lines 693-697), they did not provide their results or any further details in the subsequent sections. The absence of a discussion section persists even in this third revision, with partial discussions of results found under "Development of Hypotheses" (lines 829-878), yet these discussions lack support from prior literature. This shows that the author is still not clear about the development of hypotheses and how they can be tested.

Finally, the manuscript fails to discuss the implications of the study, its contributions to the field, and its potential beneficiaries. Overall, it appears that the author either lacks a fundamental understanding of research or is unable to incorporate the reviewers' comments effectively. I suggest that the author consult basic research methodology books or seek guidance from senior researchers to improve their research and writing skills.

Reviewer #4: All have been addressed by authors adequately. However, I suggest authors should also add one or two sentences regarding methodology in abstract.

**********

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 #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.

Path of Career Planning and Employment Strategy Based on Deep Learning in the Information Age

PONE-D-23-39644R4

Dear Dr. Zhang,

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,

Kashif Ali, PH.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: 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: No

**********

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: The author has addressed all the previously highlighted points, and the paper can be accepted with some suggestions without further review. First, replace the heading "Literature Review" with "Literature Review and Hypotheses Development". Second, replace the heading "Development of Hypotheses" with "Discussion on Results". Finally, please review the English language for cohesion and clarity.

**********

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

**********