Dear Dr. Xiaoheng,

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 Jun 07 2025 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.

• 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,

I Gede Juanamasta

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. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

 [Wu and Li thank National Social Science Foundation of China: Research on Building a Healthy China, No. 16BJY001]. 

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.""

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

[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?

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Abstract:

o Language is somewhat repetitive (e.g., repeated phrases like “development restriction”).

o The final sentence regarding mental health differences between low and high income groups is confusing and repetitive.

o The abstract should explicitly state why this research is important, briefly mention implications or recommendations.

Introduction:

o Redundant phrasing ("three-piece work set" repeated unnecessarily).

o The paragraph structure is somewhat unclear, blending government policy context and empirical health statistics without sufficient transition.

o Missing explicit statement of the research gap that this paper will address in the Introduction itself.

Literature Review:

o Several awkwardly phrased sentences (e.g., overly complex and long sentences).

o Insufficient synthesis: the literature review currently feels like a series of unrelated studies rather than a coherent narrative.

o Little international comparison or broader theoretical context provided.

Theoretical Analysis and Hypotheses:

o Theories are presented clearly, but could benefit from further critical reflection or acknowledgment of limitations.

o Some sentences are too long or convoluted, making them hard to follow.

Models and Variables:

o Model description contains minor language/grammatical issues (e.g., confusing notation).

o Justification for sample selection (ages 30-40) is clear but could be briefly re-emphasized.

o Explanation of why certain control variables are included could be more explicit.

Statistical Description:

o Minor grammatical issues (e.g., "people with limited development accounted for…").

o Insufficient explanation of why certain descriptive statistics are important or meaningful.

Empirical Analysis and Results:

o Limited explanation of unexpected findings (e.g., negative relationship between high education and health).

o R² values are relatively low, and the manuscript does not discuss the implications of this sufficiently.

Endogeneity Issues:

o Explanation of PSM approach is excessively detailed in footnotes, disrupting readability.

o Presentation of kernel density plots could be improved visually.

o The reasoning behind choosing "35-year-old threshold" is clear but could benefit from additional theoretical framing.

Mechanism Testing and Heterogeneity Analysis:

o Some results lack sufficient theoretical explanation (e.g., why working hours significantly impact mental health but not physical health).

o Slight repetition in explaining expected results and interpretations.

Robustness Tests:

o Limited explanation about why specific robustness checks were selected.

o Tables lack detailed interpretation, making them seem more routine than analytical.

Conclusions:

o Recommendations are somewhat generic and could be more specific (e.g., suggesting how to practically enhance labor supervision).

o Limited explicit reflection on study limitations or directions for future research.

References:

o Minor inconsistencies in formatting (e.g., missing years for some references).

o Some cited sources in the text appear to be missing or inconsistently listed in the bibliography.

Overall Recommendations:

1. Thorough proofreading and language editing for improved clarity, readability, and consistency.

2. Better integration and synthesis of literature to clearly highlight research gaps and theoretical contributions.

3. Clearly link empirical findings back to theoretical frameworks throughout the manuscript.

4. Provide deeper interpretive insights, explain unexpected results explicitly, and clearly articulate practical implications and limitations.

5. Please kindly check journal guidelines to follow manuscript structure.

Reviewer #2: The topic of the manuscript is interesting, but several key methodological and other weaknesses need to be addressed before the manuscript can be published.

Introduction

The state of the literature is not adequately described, and there are hardly any references to international literature. The section on gender (From a gender perspective....) on page 2 lacks references to the literature, for example.

Hypotheses

Two hypotheses are put forward, but these are not the focus of the discussion. Instead, new questions and analyses are repeatedly presented, e.g. on heterogeneity analyses, differentiations between inside/outside the system, gender and income. These analyses come as a surprise and were not introduced earlier.

Methods

1. A methods section is missing, in which the data, the variables used and all methods employed are described. Some methods are described in the results section, some in footnotes. Please describe the data, all methods (including benchmark regression and matching methods) and all variables in the methods section. For example, it is not yet clear what is meant by ‘inside/outside the system’ or ‘whether there is a staff’.

2. The methods used do not allow the hypotheses to be tested. The hypotheses are questions that need to be answered using mediation analysis. For example, the question is whether limited career opportunities have a negative impact on subjective health via the negative consequences of working hours and health behaviour. In this sense, health behaviour, for example, represents a mediator of the relationship between career opportunities and health. However, mediation analyses are not calculated. Nevertheless, mechanisms are discussed without being investigated. Hypothesis 2 with relative deprivation is not answered.

3. Only cross-sectional data is available, which does not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the direction of the relationship. It may also be the case that poor health influences career development. This problem is not addressed; instead, the influence of career opportunities on health is always discussed. Correctly, no statements can be made about the direction of the effect; only the relationship between the two variables can be discussed.

Results

1. The tables have inadequate titles and labels for the rows and columns. Information is missing, e.g. about what is meant by ‘highly educated’. Please clarify this.

2. Many sensitivity analyses are performed due to the endogeneity problem. Although it is appropriate to address this problem, it makes it difficult to identify the common thread running through the results. It is suggested that these sensitivity analyses be moved to the appendix and that the results section focus on answering the hypotheses. Therefore, it is also recommended that the robustness test be moved to the appendix.

3. It is rather unusual to provide explanations for the findings in the results section. This is usually done in the subsequent discussion.

4. The question arises as to why career opportunities are referred to as a treatment effect. What is the treatment effect in this case? Different terms are also used for this variable career opportunities, such as promotion block, non-promotion, limited development or constrained workers. This is confusing; please use consistent terminology.

5. There may be an error in Table 2. Is it really the case that non-promotions have better health (higher values)?

6. As mentioned above, no mechanisms are tested, only bivariate correlations that are linked theoretically but not empirically. Mediation analysis, in particular causal mediation analysis, represents an appropriate empirical method for testing the mechanisms. This method should be used.

7. The discussion fails to place the findings in the context of previous research. No other studies that have come to similar or different conclusions are cited in the discussion. This should be done.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Yupin Aungsuroch

Reviewer #2: 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 Plos ONE April 2025.docx

Dear Dr. Wu,

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 Aug 04 2025 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.

• 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,

I Gede Juanamasta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all the comments. I have no more comments.

The manuscript is well-prepared. It is ready to be published.

Reviewer #3: to me, this paper have simple conclusion which show promotion restriction will lead to bad mental health. this is logical.

however, the complex statistics with lack of diagram have lead me to puzzle.

i recommend reduce statistics with better diagrammatical presentation. otherwise, this is a complex paper with minimal interest to readers for my understanding.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Yupin Aungsuroch

Reviewer #3: Yes:  tan jih huei

**********

[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.

Research on the impact of career advancement on the mental health of young workers

PONE-D-25-09440R2

Dear Dr. Wu,

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,

I Gede Juanamasta

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Last time I have accepted this manuscript.

I have no more comments. The article is ready to be published.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Yupin Aungsuroch

**********