Job satisfaction as a moderator between organizational culture and turnover intention among Malaysian police officers

Erny Yusnida Che Yusoff; Mohd Nasir Selamat; Rusyda Helma Mohd

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0331458

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMay 4, 2025
19 Jun 2025 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor PONE-D-25-23324EXPLORING THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND JOB SATISFACTION ON TURNOVER INTENTIONS AMONG POLICE OFFICERS : A MODERATION ANALYSISPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Che Yusoff, 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 03 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, Rogis Baker, 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. You indicated that ethical approval was not necessary for your study. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details on why your study is exempt from the need for approval and confirmation from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an ""Other"" file. 3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information. If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information. 4. Please provide a complete Data Availability Statement in the submission form, ensuring you include all necessary access information or a reason for why you are unable to make your data freely accessible. If your research concerns only data provided within your submission, please write "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files" as your Data Availability Statement. 5. 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. Additional Editor Comments (if provided): [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: No 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: No 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: 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 manuscript presents an interesting and timely topic, especially in the context of police officer in Malaysia. However, there are several major issues that need to be addressed to enhance the rigor and clarity of the study. In the intro section, authors need to clearly indicate the role of job satisfaction as a moderator. The write-up seems to be confusing as in certain parts job satisfaction was indicated as an independent variable. It would be good if the role of job satisfaction were mentioned throughout the paper. The manuscript lacks a clearly defined hypothesis section. Include a section on hypothesis development. It would truly add rigor to the paper when the moderator was built based on previous literature. Authors can show the inconsistencies of results (e.g. strength of relationships) from previous studies. The authors are encouraged to explicitly state their hypotheses, derived from relevant literature, to provide a clear framework for testing and interpretation. The manuscript proceeds to present simple slope analyses and visual slope graphs even when the moderator effects were found to be statistically non-significant. This is methodologically inappropriate, as plotting and interpreting simple slopes without a significant interaction may mislead readers into perceiving effects that are not statistically supported. The authors are advised to remove the graph. Line 133 – 137 – “Leadership and ethics are pivotal in determining job satisfaction among police officers. Leaders who demonstrate integrity, fairness, and support for their subordinates contribute positively to job satisfaction, which in turn reduces turnover intentions (Hassan et al., 2018). Kamaluddin et al. (2024) emphasize that when police officers perceive their leaders as ethical and just, they are more likely to feel satisfied and committed to the organization. Suggest removing these lines as the variables discussed here were the candidate scope of study” In the discussion section, the reviewer suggests looking into the profile of the respondents, as the profile can also provide justification on the insignificant of the result of the moderator. Reviewer #2: Abstract - The abstract needs refinement, particularly where it states that both organizational culture and job satisfaction positively affect turnover intention. This finding contradicts most empirical literature and requires clarification. A more neutral and precise description (e.g., "significant association") is recommended. Literature Review -The manuscript lacks a strong theoretical foundation. The integration of a theoretical lens such as the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model or Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory would provide depth and better justify the hypotheses. Methodology - The manuscript should clarify the sampling technique used (random, purposive, or convenience?) and describe demographic distributions in more detail. Results and Statistical Interpretation - The directionality of the findings is concerning. Higher job satisfaction and stronger organizational culture both increase turnover intention—this is counterintuitive and needs to be critically interrogated in both the Results and Discussion sections. Discussion - More effort is needed to explain why high job satisfaction may co-exist with high turnover intention. Could it reflect dissatisfaction with organizational politics, lack of autonomy, or mismatch of personal values and organizational expectations? Language and Presentation - Language is Ok. Figures and tables should be double-checked for alignment with APA or journal-specific formatting. Overall - The manuscript addresses an important and relevant topic—turnover intention among police officers in relation to organizational culture and job satisfaction—and employs a valid methodological approach with adequate sample size. Just above thing needs a few justifications and clarification. ****** 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: Amar Hisham Jaafar ******** [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: PONE-D-25-23324_reviewer Budiman.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331458.r001
Revision 1
11 Aug 2025 Author Response Manuscript ID: PONE-D-25-23324 Title: Job satisfaction as a moderator between organizational culture and turnover intention among Malaysian police officers Dear Editors and Reviewers, We thank the Editors and both reviewers for their thorough and thoughtful feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully addressed all points raised and made substantial revisions to improve the clarity, rigor, and presentation of our work. Below we provide a detailed, point-by-point response to the comments from Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #2, followed by a detailed change log indicating where the corresponding revisions were made in the manuscript. Reviewer Comment Response 1 1 : The role of job satisfaction as a moderator is not clearly presented throughout the manuscript. Thank you for the insightful comment. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to ensure that the role of job satisfaction as a moderator is clearly and consistently presented across all major sections, including the Abstract, Introduction, Theoretical Framework, Research Hypotheses, Methodology, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Specific updates include theoretical justification (Lines 99–102), detailed moderation hypothesis (Lines 180–190), and clear results reporting (Lines 270–295). Please refer to Track Changes in the revised manuscript. 2. The manuscript lacks a clearly defined hypothesis section. We appreciate this observation. In response, we have added a dedicated section titled '5. Research Hypotheses' (Lines 190–210) that explicitly states three key hypotheses derived from the theoretical framework. These hypotheses clarify the direct and moderating effects examined in the study. 3. Simple slope analysis and visual graphs were presented despite non-significant moderation effects. Response: Thank you for your observation. We acknowledge that the moderation effect was not statistically significant (p = .117). However, we retained the simple slope analysis and visual interaction plot (Figure 2) to provide a clearer interpretation of the trend, as this is common in moderation analysis practice. Although not significant, the visualization assists readers in understanding the conditional nature of the interaction and supports transparency in statistical reporting. This decision is aligned with previous empirical practice and enhances clarity in communicating complex results. 4. Remove discussion on leadership and ethics (Lines 133–137) as they are outside the study scope. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and have removed the unrelated discussion on leadership and ethics in the revised manuscript. Specifically, lines 133–137 in the previous version have been omitted to maintain a focused discussion aligned with the study’s objectives and scope. 5. Consider the profile of the respondents when interpreting the non-significant moderation effect. Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We have updated the discussion section to consider how respondents’ profiles—such as rank, tenure, and departmental affiliation—might explain the non-significant moderation effect. These demographic factors may influence perceptions of organizational culture and satisfaction, thus impacting the moderation mechanism. The revised discussion (Paragraph 45–47) reflects these considerations to strengthen contextual interpretation. 2 1. The Abstract suggests counterintuitive findings and requires clearer language. We appreciate this feedback. The abstract has been fully revised to follow a clearer and more conventional structure—comprising background, objectives, methods, key findings, and implications. We clarified that while both organizational culture and job satisfaction were significantly related to turnover intention, the hypothesized moderation effect was not supported. Technical terms have been reduced for accessibility (Lines 29–49). 2. The manuscript lacks a strong theoretical foundation. Thank you for your valuable input. We strengthened the theoretical foundation by elaborating on Social Exchange Theory and the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model. The revised theoretical framework (Paragraphs 15–17; Lines 164–180) clearly explains the rationale behind the hypotheses and how these theories underpin the conceptual relationships between variables. Citations from Francis et al. (2020), Johnson et al. (2021), and other recent empirical studies were added to bolster theoretical grounding. 3. Clarify the sampling technique and provide demographic distribution. We have revised the Methodology section (Paragraphs 18–21; Lines 184–215) to explicitly explain the stratified sampling method used and how participants were selected across ranks and departments. Table 1 now presents the full demographic profile of respondents, including gender, age, rank, and department. 4. The directionality of the findings is counterintuitive and needs better interpretation. Thank you for highlighting this. We have addressed the counterintuitive positive associations in the discussion section (Paragraphs 42–45). We now offer theoretical and contextual explanations, including cultural rigidity, perceived hierarchy, and misalignment with individual values, to interpret the findings more thoroughly. 5. More explanation is needed on how high job satisfaction may coexist with high turnover intention. We agree with the reviewer. The revised discussion explores how satisfied officers may still express turnover intention due to career stagnation, unmet expectations, or institutional misalignment. We draw on findings from McElroy et al. (1999) and Carlan (2007) to substantiate this paradox (Paragraph 44). 6. Ensure figures and tables follow formatting guidelines. We have ensured that all figures and tables now comply with PLOS ONE formatting guidelines. Tables are referenced in the text, and figure captions are descriptive and appropriately labeled. Table 1 and Figure 1 have been adjusted accordingly. 1. Tracked Changes Manuscript We have uploaded a revised version of the manuscript with all changes clearly highlighted using Microsoft Word Track Changes, as well as a clean version for your review. 2. Data Availability Statement A complete data availability statement has been added both in the manuscript and within the online submission form, stating: "All data are in the manuscript and/or supporting information files." 3. In-text References to Tables The manuscript has been updated to include explicit in-text references to Table 1 and Table 2, in accordance with production guidelines. 4. Reference List Formatting The reference list has been revised and renumbered to follow the PLOS ONE Vancouver citation style, ordered by appearance. 5. Ethics Statement Placement The ethics statement now appears only in the Methods section, as requested. All redundant instances have been removed. 6. Ethics Approval Documentation We have uploaded the original ethical approval letter issued by the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: JEP-2024-230), along with its English translation. We hope these revisions are satisfactory and we respectfully submit our revised manuscript for your further consideration. Thank you for your time and support. Sincerely, Erny Yusnida binti Che Yusoff Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities The National University of Malaysia [orcid Detail '0000-0002-3065-4078'] Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331458.r002
17 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor Job satisfaction as a moderator between organizational culture and turnover intention among Malaysian police officers PONE-D-25-23324R1 Dear Erny Yusnida Che Yusoff, 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, Rogis Baker, Ph.D Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331458.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor PONE-D-25-23324R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Che Yusoff, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Rogis Baker Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331458.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

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

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

Learn more at ASAPbio .