Sports instructors’ job insecurity and turnover intention in South Korea: A moderated mediation model of abusive supervision, work engagement, and perceived organizational support

Kwon-Hyuk Jeong; Heesu Mun; Geon-Ha Jeong

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0347639

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionJanuary 22, 2026
18 Mar 2026 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor -->PONE-D-26-02939-->-->Job Insecurity and Turnover Intention among Sports Instructors in South Korea: A Moderated Mediation Model of Abusive Supervision, Work Engagement, and Perceived Organizational Support-->-->PLOS One Dear Dr. Mun, 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 Apr 30 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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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. In the online submission form, you indicated that further inquiries beyond the data presented in this paper can be directed to the corresponding authors. All PLOS journals now require all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript to be freely available to other researchers, either 1. In a public repository, 2. Within the manuscript itself, or 3. Uploaded as supplementary information. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If your data cannot be made publicly available for ethical or legal reasons (e.g., public availability would compromise patient privacy), please explain your reasons on resubmission and your exemption request will be escalated for approval. 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. 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. [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: Partly 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.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.-->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.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: 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 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: While the study has potential, major revisions are required: These relationships are well documented in organizational psychology literature. The authors should pay attention to clarify: what gap in sport management literature this study fills? why non-regular sports instructors represent a theoretically meaningful case? how findings refine JD-R or COR theory in precarious employment contexts? The authors should explain why some paths are insignificant in SEM but significant in PROCESS? For instance, AS � TI is insignificant (β = 0.095, p = 0.108) in SEM but it significantly predicted TI (β = 0.253, p = 0.003). Some claims need to be checked. For instance, “Individuals with high work engagement tended to express stronger desires to transition into better job positions” contradicts the buffering hypothesis and your statistical results. These interpretations appear to misread conditional indirect effects. Other comments: Strong causal wording should be softened. The manuscript should explicitly acknowledge sampling bias and limits to external validity. The manuscript needs English editing. More robustness checks should be conducted. Reviewer #2: 1. The flow and style of writing can be reviewed to make it more crisp. Conduct a thorough proofread. 2. Standardize to "abusive supervision" throughout, as it aligns with the literature (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Mackey et al., 2017). If "impersonal" is intentional, define it clearly and justify the distinction. 3. Strengthen the gap analysis. While prior studies examine job insecurity in general sectors, this is among the first to model moderated mediation in sports instructors. Add a paragraph on South Korean context (e.g., labor laws affecting non-regular workers). 4. Ensure all tables/figures are self-explanatory with full captions. Report effect sizes (e.g., f² for moderation). If multicollinearity is a concern (from correlations in Table 3), mention VIF checks. 5. Add a dedicated "Measures" subsection listing instruments (e.g., "Job insecurity was measured using Sverke et al.'s (2002) 4-item scale"). Discuss common method bias (e.g., via Harman's test) since all data are self-reported and cross-sectional. Acknowledge limitations of convenience sampling in reducing generalizability. 6. Some citations have future dates (e.g., Guo et al., 2025; Jung et al., 2024), which may indicate in-press works. Ensure these are updated if published. ****** -->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 published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347639.r001
Revision 1
26 Mar 2026 Author Response Reviewer 1. Review 1. While the study has potential, major revisions are required: These relationships are well documented in organizational psychology literature. The authors should pay attention to clarify: What gap in sport management literature this study fills? Why non-regular sports instructors represent a theoretically meaningful case? How findings refine JD-R or COR theory in precarious employment contexts? Response 1. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion to strengthen the theoretical and contextual positioning of this study. In response, we have substantially revised the Introduction section to clarify both the research gap and the contextual relevance. First, we added a new paragraph in the final part of the Introduction (immediately before the study purpose) to explicitly highlight the theoretical gap. While prior research has examined job insecurity across general occupational sectors, limited attention has been given to its complex mechanisms within the sports management context. In particular, we emphasize that this study extends the literature by examining a moderated mediation model incorporating abusive supervision, work engagement, and perceived organizational support among non-regular sports instructors. Second, we further elaborated on the theoretical relevance of non-regular sports instructors as a focal population. We clarified that their employment conditions—such as contract-based work, performance uncertainty, and weak organizational attachment—make them a meaningful context for extending the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model and Conservation of Resources (COR) theory in precarious employment settings. Finally, we incorporated a discussion of the South Korean labor market context, particularly the widespread use of non-regular employment and its structural implications for job insecurity and employee well-being. This addition strengthens the contextual grounding of the study and highlights its relevance for understanding employment precarity in institutional settings. Review 2. The authors should explain why some paths are insignificant in SEM but significant in PROCESS? For instance, AS � TI is insignificant (β = 0.095, p = 0.108) in SEM but it significantly predicted TI (β = 0.253, p = 0.003). Response 2 Thank you for this valuable comment. We have added an explanation in the Discussion section. SEM estimates relationships simultaneously using latent variables while accounting for measurement error, whereas PROCESS relies on observed variables with OLS regression and bootstrapping. Due to these methodological differences, discrepancies in statistical significance may occur. This clarification has been incorporated into the revised manuscript. Review 3. Some claims need to be checked. For instance, “Individuals with high work engagement tended to express stronger desires to transition into better job positions” contradicts the buffering hypothesis and your statistical results. These interpretations appear to misread conditional indirect effects. Response 3 We thank the reviewer for this important and constructive comment. We agree that the original wording could be interpreted as inconsistent with both our buffering hypothesis and the observed conditional indirect effects. In response, we carefully revised the relevant parts of the Discussion section to ensure that the interpretation is fully aligned with the statistical results. Specifically, we removed statements suggesting that individuals with high work engagement or high perceived organizational support were more likely to seek better job positions. These sentences could misrepresent the direction of the moderated mediation effects. We replaced them with a more accurate interpretation indicating that the indirect effect of job insecurity on turnover intention through abusive supervision was stronger at lower levels of work engagement and perceived organizational support, and weaker at higher levels of these resources. Accordingly, the revised text now clarifies that both work engagement and perceived organizational support function as buffering resources that attenuate the negative indirect pathway from job insecurity to turnover intention via abusive supervision. These revisions improve the consistency between the hypotheses, statistical findings, and theoretical interpretation. Review 4. Strong causal wording should be softened. The manuscript should explicitly acknowledge sampling bias and limits to external validity. The manuscript needs English editing. More robustness checks should be conducted. Response 4. Thank you for these constructive suggestions. In response, we revised the manuscript in four ways. First, we softened causal wording throughout the Introduction, Theoretical Background, and Hypothesis sections to ensure that the language is consistent with the cross-sectional design. Second, we added explicit statements on sampling bias and limited external validity in the Methods and Discussion sections. Third, we thoroughly edited the manuscript for clarity, concision, and overall English flow. Fourth, we added robustness-check procedures to the Data Analysis section and reported the stability of the findings in the Results section. Reviewer 2. Review 1. The flow and style of writing can be reviewed to make it more crisp. Conduct a thorough proofread. Response 1. Thank you for these constructive suggestions. In response, we revised the manuscript in three ways. First, we softened causal wording throughout the Introduction, Theoretical Background, and Hypothesis sections to ensure that the language is consistent with the cross-sectional design. Second, we added explicit statements on sampling bias and limited external validity in the Methods and Discussion sections. Third, we thoroughly edited the manuscript for clarity, concision, and overall English flow. Review 2. Standardize to "abusive supervision" throughout, as it aligns with the literature (e.g., Tepper, 2000; Mackey et al., 2017). If "impersonal" is intentional, define it clearly and justify the distinction. Response 2. I have checked and corrected all the incorrect words. Thank you. Review 3. Strengthen the gap analysis. While prior studies examine job insecurity in general sectors, this is among the first to model moderated mediation in sports instructors. Add a paragraph on South Korean context (e.g., labor laws affecting non-regular workers). Response 3. Thank you for this valuable comment. In response, we revised the Introduction section by adding a new gap-analysis paragraph immediately before the study purpose paragraph. Specifically, we clarified that, although prior studies have examined job insecurity in general occupational sectors, limited research has investigated its moderated mediation mechanism within the sport management context, particularly among sports instructors. We also emphasized that non-regular sports instructors represent a theoretically meaningful case because their work is characterized by close supervisory dependence, emotional labor, and unstable employment arrangements. In addition, we incorporated the South Korean labor context to highlight how the widespread use of non-regular employment and related structural inequalities in job security and welfare benefits make this setting particularly relevant for examining precarious employment. Because the institutional details were already discussed in the Literature Review, the Introduction was revised to provide a concise contextual justification while avoiding redundancy. These revisions strengthen the theoretical positioning and contextual relevance of the study. Review 4. Ensure all tables/figures are self-explanatory with full captions. Report effect sizes (e.g., f² for moderation). If multicollinearity is a concern (from correlations in Table 3), mention VIF checks. Response 4. All tables and figures have been revised to include clearer notes and definitions of abbreviations. Additionally, effect sizes (Cohen’s f²) were calculated and reported for moderation effects, indicating small-to-moderate magnitudes. We also assessed multicollinearity using variance inflation factor (VIF), and all values were below the recommended threshold, indicating no multicollinearity concerns. Review 5. Add a dedicated "Measures" subsection listing instruments (e.g., "Job insecurity was measured using Sverke et al.'s (2002) 4-item scale"). Discuss common method bias (e.g., via Harman's test) since all data are self-reported and cross-sectional. Acknowledge limitations of convenience sampling in reducing generalizability. Response 5. Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly. First, a dedicated "Measures" subsection has been added to clearly specify the measurement instruments used for each construct, including their original sources and number of items. Second, to address potential common method bias due to the use of self-reported and cross-sectional data, Harman’s single-factor test was conducted. The results indicated that no single factor accounted for the majority of the variance, suggesting that common method bias is unlikely to be a serious concern. Finally, we have explicitly acknowledged the limitation of convenience sampling in the Discussion section, noting that it may restrict the generalizability of the findings. These revisions have been incorporated into the manuscript. Review 6. Some citations have future dates (e.g., Guo et al., 2025; Jung et al., 2024), which may indicate in-press works. Ensure these are updated if published. Response 6. This journal has been removed as it was deemed problematic. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347639.r002
6 Apr 2026 Decision Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor Sports Instructors’ Job Insecurity and Turnover Intention in South Korea: A Moderated Mediation Model of Abusive Supervision, Work Engagement, and Perceived Organizational Support PONE-D-26-02939R1 Dear Mun, 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 and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact 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.0347639.r003
Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Rogis Baker, Editor PONE-D-26-02939R1 PLOS One Dear Dr. Mun, 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.0347639.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 .