Pension levels of chinese institutions during the transition period: A case study of universities

Xu-Juan Lu; Qian-Xing Zhuang

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0332068

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 25, 2025
24 Apr 2025 Decision Letter - Tamara Fioroni, Editor Dear Dr. Zhuang, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. The referee believes that there are several important issues that need to be addressed and therefore recommends major revisions. Based on my assessment, I agree with the points raised by the referee. In addition, I believe that the manuscript would benefit from a stronger engagement with the theoretical literature relevant to the topic, particularly in relation to the main findings. Therefore, based on both my reading of the paper and the referee’s comments, I recommend a weak revise and resubmit decision. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 08 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, Tamara Fioroni 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: “This work was supported by the General Projects of Philosophy and Social Sciences in Higher Education Institutions of Jiangsu Province (grants 2022SYB1735)” 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. Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? Reviewer #1: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?> Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??> The PLOS Data policy Reviewer #1: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??> Reviewer #1: Yes ****** Reviewer #1: The article addresses a globally relevant issue: population aging and its implications for pension systems. In particular, the authors focus on the Chinese pension system, analyzing the effects of a reform initiated in 2014 and structured over a ten-year transitional period. In my opinion, although the topic is relevant and the study presents some interesting aspects, the manuscript requires a major revision before it can be considered for publication. Among the strengths of the paper, I acknowledge: • the clear relevance of the subject; • the size of the dataset, which includes 1,200 retirees from before the transition and 3,270 from during the transition period. However, several weaknesses compromise the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript. In particular: 1. Formatting issues with mathematical content The mathematical formulas are presented inline (e.g., page 15), rather than in a proper equation environment. This makes them difficult to read. Furthermore, many symbols are introduced after the formulas, reducing their immediate comprehensibility. The mathematical notation should be cleaned up, with clearly defined variables and standalone, numbered equations where appropriate. 2. Lack of explanation for key techniques Several methods and indices are used without any introduction or justification. These should be properly explained, especially for non-expert readers. 3. Impression of a rushed submission The writing gives the impression that the paper was submitted prematurely. A thorough revision is necessary to improve both technical clarity and narrative cohesion. Moreover, clicking on the link to the dataset opens a page in Chinese. It would be better to upload the data to a public repository with an explanation in English, so that access is understandable internationally. To conclude, I believe the study addresses an important and interesting question, and the data used are valuable. However, the authors should revise the manuscript with greater care and avoid assuming too much background knowledge on the part of the reader. ****** 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 ******** [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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332068.r001
Revision 1
30 Jun 2025 Author Response Response to Reviewer # 1� Many thanks to the reviewer for his/her encouraging comments and valuable suggestions to our manuscript. The following is our point-by-point reply to the issues raised by the reviewer: 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 ________________________________________ 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: I Don't Know ________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________ 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 article addresses a globally relevant issue: population aging and its implications for pension systems. In particular, the authors focus on the Chinese pension system, analyzing the effects of a reform initiated in 2014 and structured over a ten-year transitional period. In my opinion, although the topic is relevant and the study presents some interesting aspects, the manuscript requires a major revision before it can be considered for publication. Among the strengths of the paper, I acknowledge: • the clear relevance of the subject; • the size of the dataset, which includes 1,200 retirees from before the transition and 3,270 from during the transition period. However, several weaknesses compromise the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript. In particular: 1. Formatting issues with mathematical content The mathematical formulas are presented inline (e.g., page 15), rather than in a proper equation environment. This makes them difficult to read. Furthermore, many symbols are introduced after the formulas, reducing their immediate comprehensibility. The mathematical notation should be cleaned up, with clearly defined variables and standalone, numbered equations where appropriate. Response: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have employed mathematical formulas to illustrate the calculation methods for pre-transition and transition pensions, with each component clearly defined and elucidated in relation to the formulas (Page 6, Lines 138-139, and Pages 7-8 in the revised manuscript). We hope that this approach will facilitate a more accessible reading experience for the audience. 2. Lack of explanation for key techniques Several methods and indices are used without any introduction or justification. These should be properly explained, especially for non-expert readers. Response: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have included the statistical methods utilized in the figure legends. Additionally, we have incorporated statistical tables into the manuscript that provide detailed information on the tests employed, sample size (n), and statistical descriptions (S1 Table of the revised manuscript). Furthermore, we have revised what was originally Table 2 to Figure 4 to enhance the clarity and intuitiveness of the results (Figure 4 of the revised manuscript). 3. Impression of a rushed submission The writing gives the impression that the paper was submitted prematurely. A thorough revision is necessary to improve both technical clarity and narrative cohesion. Moreover, clicking on the link to the dataset opens a page in Chinese. It would be better to upload the data to a public repository with an explanation in English, so that access is understandable internationally. Response: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have made substantial revisions to the manuscript, which include the incorporation of formulas for pension calculation and a comprehensive definition of each component within the pension framework (Page 6, Lines 138-139, and Pages 7-8 in the revised manuscript). Secondly, we provide a detailed clarification of the statistical methods employed in this study within the methods section and accompanying figure legends. Thirdly, in S1 Table, we present an exhaustive description of the statistics utilized in each figure throughout the manuscript. This includes information on comparison objects, statistical methods applied, sample sizes, and corresponding statistical results (S1 Table of the revised manuscript). Finally, due to the presence of sensitive information related to individual income, we have revised the data availability statement (Page 26, Lines 617-627 in the revised manuscript). To conclude, I believe the study addresses an important and interesting question, and the data used are valuable. However, the authors should revise the manuscript with greater care and avoid assuming too much background knowledge on the part of the reader. ________________________________________ 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 ________________________________________ [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: Lu et al__response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332068.r002
6 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Tamara Fioroni, Editor Dear Dr. Zhuang, The referee is generally satisfied with the revisions and considers the article almost ready for publication. However, he has suggested that a few minor revisions are still necessary before proceeding. Based on my own assessment, I agree with the points raised by the referee. In addition, as I mentioned in my previous email, I still do not see a stronger connection with the relevant theoretical literature, particularly in relation to the main findings. I therefore kindly ask you to address this aspect in your revised manuscript. Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 20 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 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, Tamara Fioroni Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 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 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: The authors have addressed all of my previous points, and I believe the article is almost ready for publication. Before proceeding with publication, I suggest making the following final revisions: - Line 168: Is the % sign necessary? - Lines 168–169: Move the entire formula for A_PI to line 169. - Line 178: The subscripts n and n − 1 are too large. If the article was written in Word, I suggest using the equation environment or at least reducing the size of the subscripts and ensuring consistency throughout the article (e.g., on line 180). If the article was written in LaTeX, I suggest using something like $x_n$ and then making adjustments wherever needed. - Line 202: For consistency with the rest of the article, "presented in S1 Table" should be changed to "presented in (Table S1)", with the parentheses and their content in bold. ****** 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: Mauro Maria Baldi ******** [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 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332068.r003
Revision 2
10 Aug 2025 Author Response Response to Editor� Many thanks to the editor for her encouraging comments and valuable suggestions to our manuscript. The following is our reply to the point raised by the academic editor: Based on my own assessment, I agree with the points raised by the referee. In addition, as I mentioned in my previous email, I still do not see a stronger connection with the relevant theoretical literature, particularly in relation to the main findings. I therefore kindly ask you to address this aspect in your revised manuscript. Response: According to the Editor’s suggestion, we have incorporated a discussion regarding the relationship between the primary findings of this manuscript and the relevant theoretical literature in the discussion section (Page 21, Lines 490-513 in the revised manuscript). Response to Reviewer # 1� Many thanks to the reviewer for his encouraging comments and valuable suggestions to our manuscript. The following is our reply to the points raised by the reviewer: Comments to the Author 1. 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 Response: In accordance with the submission guidelines, we have included a "Data Availability Statement" at the end of the manuscript, which has been approved by the editorial manager. 2. Before proceeding with publication, I suggest making the following final revisions: - Line 168: Is the % sign necessary? Response: Thanks very much for the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have carefully examined the formula and determined that the percentage sign is indeed necessary. - Lines 168–169: Move the entire formula for A_PI to line 169. Response: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have relocated the entire formula for A_PI to the subsequent line (Page 8, Line 170 in the revised manuscript). - Line 178: The subscripts n and n − 1 are too large. If the article was written in Word, I suggest using the equation environment or at least reducing the size of the subscripts and ensuring consistency throughout the article (e.g., on line 180). If the article was written in LaTeX, I suggest using something like $x_n$ and then making adjustments wherever needed. Response: Thanks very much for the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have reduced the size of the subscripts and ensured consistency throughout the manuscript (Page 8, Lines 179-181 in the revised manuscript). - Line 202: For consistency with the rest of the article, "presented in S1 Table" should be changed to "presented in (Table S1)", with the parentheses and their content in bold. Response: According to the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the representation of Table S1 (Page 8, Line 203 in the revised manuscript). Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Lu et al__response to Editor and Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332068.r004
26 Aug 2025 Decision Letter - Tamara Fioroni, Editor Pension Levels of Chinese Institutions During the Transition Period: A Case Study of Universities PONE-D-25-04091R2 Dear Dr. Qian-Xing Zhuang, 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, Tamara Fioroni 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: In my opinion, the manuscript has satisfactorily addressed the requested revisions and is now ready for publication. ****** 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: Mauro Maria Baldi ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332068.r005
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Tamara Fioroni, Editor PONE-D-25-04091R2 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Zhuang, 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 Professor Tamara Fioroni Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0332068.r006

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 .