Dear Dr. Park,

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.

Key Points of Concern:

• The abstract offers conceptual context but is devoid of critical analytical (data) evidence to substantiate the assertions. Also, limitations like small sample sizes, possible expert bias, and how well the sample represents the sector should be noted.
• The manuscript has remarkably higher AI usage index, which could be a problem with ethics and may not be within PLOS ONE's permitted range. The authors need to make a lot of changes to the manuscript so that less than 20% of it is flagged by AI and the tone is more scholarly.
• While the manuscript reviews RSU governance practices extensively, it does not clearly differentiate:

-What this study contributes to current RSU/equity compensation frameworks

-How the Delphi-AHP hybrid methodology offers innovative perspectives

-What actionable implications the results have for cross-industry RSU design

• Much of the discussion summarizes prior literature rather than synthesizing new contributions identified through the expert-driven AHP approach and Delphi consensus.
• Introduction:

-Reviewer 1 correctly notes the need for methodological grounding and updated citations.

-The last paragraph of the Introduction should clearly show how the manuscript is organized and how the subsequent sections are planned.

• Literature Review:

-The review must begin with a rationale paragraph framing why a literature review on RSU governance is necessary and proceed with clearer, thematically grouped sources.

-The current review cites several seminal works but lacks recent evidence from: Behavioral finance on executive incentives, corporate governance reforms post-2020, cross-industry RSU adoption trends etc.

• Add a few recent (preferably 2021 to 2025) and credible sources in citations and references. References should follow APA format and guidelines and also should be arranged in alphabetical order. Further, include the doi link to the resources as much as possible. At least 80% of references must include DOIs where available.
• The manuscript presents both Delphi and AHP methodologies reflecting statistical rigor. Authors should describe the population of specialists, Justify the sample size (n), Explain criteria for picking experts across industries, Clarify whether experts were evenly distributed across sectors
• The manuscript reports two rounds but does not describe: How consensus was measured (e.g., percentage, stability index), How conflicting responses were handled, and the rationale for ending after two rounds
• Give rationale behind “AHP targets by particular industry group”. Also, clarify how to handle missing or incomplete expert responses
• The results section shows weighted RSU governance criteria by industry, but interpretation is limited, making it hard to understand. Also, tables and figures should follow the journal’s guideline.
• References: should follow APA format and guidelines.  Pay close attention to the authors cited in the text, as well as the spelling, year of publication, and author verification throughout the text.

The manuscript shows potential, especially in how it uses Delphi and AHP from different fields to create industry-specific RSU governance structures. But there are some very important issues that need to be addressed, and align with journal standards.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2026 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,

Dipendra Karki, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

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

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

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

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

2. Please 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“If this manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors will receive a research grant of 5,000,000 KRW from Seoul Business School (aSSIST University) to support further academic work.”

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.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Funding Section of your manuscript:

“This research was supported by Seoul Business School (aSSIST University).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“If this manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors will receive a research grant of 5,000,000 KRW from Seoul Business School (aSSIST University) to support further academic work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

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.

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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author/s

Thank you for your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After review of the manuscript, the reviewers’ reports, and an internal editorial assessment, we find that the manuscript addresses a relevant and underexplored topic: the design of industry-specific RSU governance frameworks using a combined Delphi-AHP approach. This manuscript demonstrates meaningful potential but several substantial revisions are required before the manuscript can be considered for publication. Please find detailed, constructive comments as follows:

• The abstract offers conceptual context but is devoid of critical analytical (data) evidence to substantiate the assertions. Also, limitations like small sample sizes, possible expert bias, and how well the sample represents the sector should be noted.

• The manuscript has remarkably higher AI usage index, which could be a problem with ethics and may not be within PLOS ONE's permitted range. The authors need to make a lot of changes to the manuscript so that less than 20% of it is flagged by AI and the tone is more scholarly.

• While the manuscript reviews RSU governance practices extensively, it does not clearly differentiate:

-What this study contributes to current RSU/equity compensation frameworks

-How the Delphi-AHP hybrid methodology offers innovative perspectives

-What actionable implications the results have for cross-industry RSU design

• Much of the discussion summarizes prior literature rather than synthesizing new contributions identified through the expert-driven AHP approach and Delphi consensus.

•Introduction:

-Reviewer 1 correctly notes the need for methodological grounding and updated citations.

-The last paragraph of the Introduction should clearly show how the manuscript is organized and how the subsequent sections are planned.

•Literature Review:

-The review must begin with a rationale paragraph framing why a literature review on RSU governance is necessary and proceed with clearer, thematically grouped sources.

-The current review cites several seminal works but lacks recent evidence from: Behavioral finance on executive incentives, corporate governance reforms post-2020, cross-industry RSU adoption trends etc.

•Add a few recent (preferably 2021 to 2025) and credible sources in citations and references. References should follow APA format and guidelines and also should be arranged in alphabetical order. Further, include the doi link to the resources as much as possible. At least 80% of references must include DOIs where available.

•The manuscript presents both Delphi and AHP methodologies reflecting statistical rigor. Authors should describe the population of specialists, Justify the sample size (n), Explain criteria for picking experts across industries, Clarify whether experts were evenly distributed across sectors

•The manuscript reports two rounds but does not describe: How consensus was measured (e.g., percentage, stability index), How conflicting responses were handled, and the rationale for ending after two rounds

•Give rationale behind “AHP targets by particular industry group”. Also, clarify how to handle missing or incomplete expert responses

•The results section shows weighted RSU governance criteria by industry, but interpretation is limited, making it hard to understand. Also, tables and figures should follow the journal’s guideline.

•References: should follow APA format and guidelines. Pay close attention to the authors cited in the text, as well as the spelling, year of publication, and author verification throughout the text.

-The manuscript shows potential, especially in how it uses Delphi and AHP from different fields to create industry-specific RSU governance structures. But there are some very important issues that need to be addressed, and align with journal standards.

Editorial Decision: Major Revision

Looking forward to receiving a revised version that incorporates these suggestions.

Warm regards,

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The article is well-written, with clarity in its application aspects and the relevance of the topic. It needs to better define the methodological aspects in order to better characterize the study and better inform the reader. More comments were described in the supplementary file.

Reviewer #2: The paper discusses an interesting topic and presents the main concepts, the methodology, and the findings in a thorough and coherent manner. The research has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review_PLOSONE.pdf

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments to the Authors_PONE-D-25-36569.pdf

Strategic Equity Compensation A Delphi-AHP Approach to Industry-Specific RSUs Governance Design

PONE-D-25-36569R1

Dear Dr. Park,

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,

Dipendra Karki, Ph.D.

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

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I would add the term Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) written out in full, considering that it only appears in the Introduction. Explaining the term right at the beginning can make it easier for the reader to understand, as well as aid in searches.

Review acronyms and write them out in full when possible, at least the first time they are mentioned in the text.

I would add a brief description of the organization of Figures 1 and 2, as well as lines 470-471 and 577-578 describing the figures in more detail, to do justice to their construction and integration into the article's text.

Reviewer #2: The paper addresses an interesting topic and has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to the field.

Reviewer #3: General Comments

The authors have been highly responsive to the previous round of reviews. The manuscript has evolved from a largely descriptive study into a theoretically grounded research paper. The inclusion of Behavioral Finance and Governance Reform frameworks provides the necessary academic context that was missing in the initial submission. I recommend tightening the Introduction to focus more sharply on the core research gap and the study’s specific objectives. A more streamlined opening would allow readers to reach the problem statement and methodology with greater clarity.

Specific Points

Methodological Rigor:

The clarification of the three-round Delphi process is an important correction. The use of the Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Kendall’s W provides the level of statistical confidence required for a study of this nature. The distinction between the “Gatekeeper” expert group (Legal/Accounting) and the “Execution” group (HR/Strategy) is particularly insightful.

Literature Review:

The addition of 26 citations—particularly those addressing the structural limitations of stock options relative to the institutional advantages of RSUs—substantially strengthens the problem framing in the Introduction.

Industry-Specific Insights:

Section 5.2.5 and Table 23 are valuable additions. By contrasting the emphasis on “Talent Retention” in the technology sector with the focus on “Operational Complexity” in heavy industry, the paper provides actionable insights that clearly justify its focus on industry heterogeneity.

Discussion and Interpretation:

The new sub-clauses in Section 4.4 and the expanded discussion in Section 5 effectively move the analysis beyond what the data show to why these patterns emerge.

Major Suggestions for Final Polish

Tighten the Introduction:

Consider removing overly detailed empirical discussions to ensure a more direct path to the problem statement and research objectives.

Reference Placement and Consistency:

The addition of 26 new citations significantly enriches the manuscript’s scholarly depth. However, I encourage the authors to “front-load” these references by integrating them into the Literature Review (Section 2), rather than introducing them for the first time in the final discussion.

Additionally, please conduct a final reference check to ensure that all in-text citations—particularly the newly added references [135]–[160]—are correctly aligned with the bibliography.

Establishing the theoretical framework earlier will allow the Results section (Section 4) to remain a focused, data-driven presentation of findings, free from additional interpretative citations.

Geographical Scope:

While the paper is firmly grounded in the Korean corporate context, a brief concluding remark on how the findings might translate to other civil-law versus common-law jurisdictions would enhance the manuscript’s international relevance.

Attrition Reporting:

Please ensure that the manuscript explicitly states whether any experts dropped out between Round 1 and subsequent rounds of the Delphi survey.

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Decision Letter to Authors_PONE-D-25-36569R1.pdf