PONE-D-25-21939A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational IdentificationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 Jul 19 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.

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,

Francesco Marcatto, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that 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.

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review the paper entitled “A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification" Here are some suggestions to improve the paper:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

1. The current form of the abstract is not well written. Please do not report the statistic result in the abstract. Author should highlight the novelty and main aim of the study. Make sure it commences with a succinct statement of the primary aim of the study, highlighting the novelty it brings to the field. This should be followed by a concise description of the research methodology employed, including the analysis techniques utilized and details regarding the sample collection process. Finally, it should conclude with a brief summary of the key findings and the implications derived from them. It is essential to emphasize the unique contributions of this study. Only highlight the most significant findings and implications to maintain focus.

2. The introduction lacks a clear structure and focus. It would benefit from a more coherent presentation to effectively introduce the study's objectives and significance. Please follow this suggested structure: (1) Summarize the existing issue together with its importance. (2) Explain how researchers should address the discovered areas that need further investigation. (3) The research gap must clearly relate to the existing issue. (4) The research benefits from critiquing these aspects that previous academic studies avoid. (5) Review relevant past studies. (6) Draw a contrast between this study and all related past research. (7) Clearly state the research objectives. (8) The paper details how it introduces beneficial concepts to academic literature. A properly organized introduction creates better clarity by establishing solid groundwork for the overall paper.

3. The introduction fails to connect properly the research issue to the fundamental concepts of this study. The discussion needs to present all essential concepts in a straightforward manner. Authors only tend to cover these constructs without proper linkage with the issues.

4. The authors fail to define their research gap with clarity and supporting evidence. The authors need to present a precise identification of the unaddressed areas in past research. All necessary arguments should be presented to validate the immediate need for addressing this gap. Provide a clear reasoning that demonstrates the study’s connection to contemporary conditions.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

5. Should have a standalone section for underpinning theory. This is to explain how the theory supporting the proposed paths and model. To enhance the clarity and coherence of the research, I recommend the authors thoroughly explain how or any theory support the current study and each path. By elaborating on the theory's key concepts and demonstrating its relevance to the research topic, the authors can establish a stronger connection between the theoretical foundation and the study's objectives.

6. Section 1.1 to 1.4 should be parked under the heading of literature review.

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?

7. The research methodology is not well-written and not clear. Should have two sub-sections: (1) Research procedure and samples and (2) research instruments.

8. The authors should discuss the generalizability and representativeness of their sample in relation to the target population. Authors need to clearly explain how the chosen sample is intended to be representative of and reflective of the larger population. Any strategies employed to ensure a diverse and inclusive sample should also be highlighted. This will increase the credibility of the research findings and help readers understand the extent to which the results can be generalized to the broader population.

9. It is essential to provide a clear explanation of a stratified convenience sampling technique used in the study, along with the rationale for its selection. Why these techniques? What do you mean stratified convenience sampling technique? Stratified sampling technique is a probability sampling technique whereas convenience sampling technique is a non-probability sampling technique. Please relook into this. Are you referring to quota sampling technique? The authors should describe how they utilized this sampling technique to select respondents for the survey, ensuring generalizability and representativeness towards the targeted population. By doing so, readers can better understand the methodological approach and the potential limitations associated with the sample selection.

10. Any selection criteria?

11. It is good to include control variables which could be a confounding variable. However, author should provide justification for the inclusion of these control variables.

12. The procedure of data collection needs to be elaborated further. The authors should explain in more detail how they collected the data, how they approached the respondents, and how they identified participants for the survey study. This explanation should be reasonable and logical, avoiding exaggerations and providing a clear account of the steps taken in the data collection process.

13. Any pretest and pilot test conducted prior to full scale study? Why?

14. Why SPSS PROCESS MACRO software was used in this study?

15. The research instrument section is too lengthy. Please simplify it.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

16. The analysis results reporting is not clear. Author should report the preliminary analysis result (common method bias test, descriptive analysis results, and respondents profile characteristics), measurement model analysis (reliability, convergent validity, discriminant validity), and structural model analysis (path result)

5. Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the

17. The structure of the conclusion part should be as follows: (1) Discussion, (2) Theoretical Implications, (3) Practical Implications, (4) Limitations and Future Research Recommendations, and (5) Conclusion.

18. Discussion part should be presented more concise.

19. Should have a standalone section for theoretical implication. This section should discuss the implications of the study's findings and how they contribute to the existing theoretical knowledge. Summarize the key findings and their relevance to the existing theoretical frameworks or models. Analyze how the findings align with or challenge current theoretical perspectives and concepts related to all the key concepts of this study. Discuss any theoretical insights or advancements that the study provides and highlight how the findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the research area.

20. Should have a standalone section for practical implication. The authors should provide valuable insights based on current practices and policies, supported by evidence from their research. To strengthen the practical implications, it is crucial to reference specific findings, data, or examples that demonstrate the validity and reliability of the recommendations. By incorporating this approach, the authors can offer concrete and actionable suggestions that have a solid grounding in their research findings.

21. A conclusion section is required with not more than 150 words.

6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

Proofread the manuscript, Clarity is required, and cite more recent relevant studies. Please also check citation format and referencing style.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I commend your efforts in completing this study. Based on my evaluation, the manuscript is well written and meets two essential criteria for publication in PLOS ONE: compliance with research ethics and a sound methodological foundation. Therefore, I believe the manuscript is, in principle, suitable for publication. That said, I would like to offer the following suggestions to help improve the overall clarity and scholarly quality of your work:

1. I recommend removing detailed numerical statistical findings from the abstract, as these may reduce clarity for general readers. Instead, consider presenting your key findings in a concise and accessible manner to ensure broader understanding.

2. There appears to be inconsistency in how the term Conservation of Resources Theory is referenced, as it is also labeled at times as resource preservation theory or resource conservation theory. While this may stem from translation issues, ensuring consistent and accurate use of terminology will strengthen the manuscript’s academic clarity.

3. It would enhance the manuscript’s impact to include dedicated sections for Theoretical Implications and Managerial Implications. These sections would clarify the study’s contributions to both academic discourse and practical application—potentially including recommendations for organizational practice or policy.

I believe that research conducted with care and clarity can make a meaningful contribution to society. I hope these suggestions help you further refine the manuscript and strengthen its scholarly value.

**********

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:  Andika Setia Pratama

**********

[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-25-21939R1A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational IdentificationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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 22 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.

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,

Jianpeng Fan

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Thank you for allowing me to review the improved version of the paper entitled “A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification" Here are some suggestions to improve the paper:

1. Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?

1. Authors have well revised the introduction by explaining the intention of the study and also the uniqueness of the paper.

2. Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?

2. Authors have improved the literature review.

3. Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?

3. The methodology is well written and comprehensive enough.

4. Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?

4. The analysis is well presented.

5. Practicality and/or Research implications: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for practice and/or further research? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the

5. I can see authors did a very good job. The key findings are explained thoroughly and clearly. Implications is revised substantially, and key points are indicated clearly.

6. Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the fields and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.

6. The manuscript is well-written.

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

Thank you for the thoughtful and thorough way you addressed my previous comments. While your revisions have addressed most of the issues I raised, a few points still require attention to make the manuscript more rigorous and ready for publication:

1. Please adopt a single citation format throughout the manuscript (Vancouver style). I noticed instances of duplicate citations in mixed styles. For example:

“The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale developed by Mauno et al. (2001)[30] to assess employees’ subjective perceptions of job stability.”

could be streamlined to:

“The study employed the validated Job Insecurity Scale to assess employees’ subjective perceptions of job stability [30].”

2. Section 4.1 — Common Method Bias (CMB) test

The manuscript currently states:

“The 305 results of Harman’s single-factor test indicated that the unrotated first common factor accounted for 49.59 % of the variance, thereby indicating the presence of common method bias, which was insufficient to overshadow the study’s findings.”

Because 49.59% falls below the conventional 50% threshold, it should not be interpreted as evidence of common method variance (CMV). Nevertheless, the risk of CMV is reinforced by VIF values greater than 3.3 (Kock, 2015; https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101). I strongly recommend conducting an additional diagnostic—such as the Lindell & Whitney marker‐variable test (2001; https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.114)—to determine whether CMB meaningfully inflates the correlations among your variables. For a comprehensive overview, see Podsakoff et al. (2023; https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030).

3. To further underscore the relevance and urgency of your OCB investigation, you may wish to incorporate insights from recent literature, for example:

• https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-08-2023-0433

• https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2024-1049

• https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241268848

I trust these suggestions will help you refine the manuscript and enhance its scholarly contributions.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Andika Setia Pratama

**********

[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.

A Study of the Effects of Job Insecurity on Organizational Citizenship Behavior Based on the Chained Mediating Effects of Emotional Exhaustion and Organizational Identification

PONE-D-25-21939R2

Dear Dr. Zhu,

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. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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,

Jianpeng Fan

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I appreciate the considerable effort you have devoted to strengthening the manuscript and addressing each of my previous comments. Although potential issues related to common method bias (CMB) remain, I commend your candor in acknowledging them explicitly and your diligence in mitigating their impact.

With respect to my earlier recommendation concerning the procedural remedies proposed by Lindell and Whitney (2001), please note that CMB can still be assessed even when marker‑variable data were not collected during the original data‑gathering phase. Nonetheless, I recognize the steps you have taken and do not wish to delay the publication process any further.

Given the transparency of your methods, your adherence to ethical standards, and the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s technical requirements, I recommend that the paper be accepted for publication in PLOS ONE. One additional suggestion—regrettably omitted from my earlier feedback—is to consider shortening the title for greater concision; if feasible, doing so would enhance the paper’s overall clarity. However, the current title does accurately reflect the scope of your study.

**********

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 #2: Yes:  Andika Setia Pratama

**********