Self-Application of the CCP Model among Socio-Labor Counseling Professionals: Evaluation of the Impact on Their Careers and Social Sustainability Actions

 REVIEWER 1

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Quality of English Language, English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

An expert company has been hired to translate and proofread the article in depth.

Considering the recent developments in the field of vocational/occupational psychology, studies on career development have begun to evolve from quantitative determinants to take stories. When considered in this context, it is thought that this study will make important contributions to the vocational/occupational psychology literature. It is especially important to work on counsellors. I congratulate the authors for their efforts.

Thank you very much for your considerations of the work, for highlighting the contributions of the work to the field of career guidance, and for all the suggestions for improvement, which have undoubtedly helped improve the quality of the manuscript.

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

The study background has been reviewed in depth: It has been clarified that this field has little previous research, and additional relevant literature has been cited to clarify and highlight the theoretical approaches of the study. The aspects that characterize the relationship of professional development to sustainability have been specified, and the concept of a sustainable career has been clearly highlighted, as well as the factors that characterize it in connection with SDGs. Furthermore, previous and current theoretical backgrounds and empirical research, both internationally and nationally, have been incorporated. Additional references have been added as needed (De Vos et al., 2020; Argyropoulou et al., 2020), and some revisions (paragraph 7) and additional development have necessitated an increase to the word count that we hope the journal will be able to accept.

 REVIEWER 2

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

The authors have put a lot of effort into the paper for which I appreciate them. 

Thank you very much for your considerations of the work, for highlighting the contributions of the work to the field of career guidance, and for all the suggestions for improvement, which have undoubtedly helped improve the quality of the manuscript.

Quality of English Language, Extensive editing of English language and style required.

An expert company has been hired to translate and proofread the article in depth.

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

The study background has been reviewed in depth: It has been clarified that this field has little previous research, and additional relevant literature has been cited to clarify and highlight the theoretical approaches of the study. The aspects that characterize the relationship of professional development to sustainability have been specified, and the concept of a sustainable career has been clearly highlighted, as well as the factors that characterize it in connection with SDGs. Furthermore, previous and current theoretical backgrounds and empirical research, both internationally and nationally, have been incorporated. Additional references have been added as needed (De Vos et al., 2020; Argyropoulou et al., 2020), and some revisions (paragraph 7) and additional development have necessitated an increase to the word count that we hope the journal will be able to accept.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

The references used have been reviewed and are considered relevant to the study. In addition, in response to the reviewer comments, we have incorporated additional references as needed.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

The correspondence of methodological elements has been reviewed in depth and improved as follows:

-We have clarified the formulation of the purpose and objectives to better highlight the relationship between the main objective of the study and sustainable development.

-The procedure section now includes the design, script and questions used in the discussion group technique.

-We have clarified the instruments and techniques for the collection of information, including the discussion group. Complementation has been included in the title.

-In Table 1, category system, the relationship between the categories and subcategories with the linked SDGs has been better highlighted.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

This aspect has been reviewed in depth, and revisions have been made to improve the argumentation.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

We have made additional edits to the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions, and we believe that the results are now presented in a clear and coherent way that considers the stated objectives.

Is the article adequately referenced?

The references used and the article itself have been reviewed in depth. We have made several revisions to the manuscript, including broadening the discussion and incorporating some new literature that allows us to better justify the object of study, and we believe that the article is now adequately justified by the theoretical review.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

The conclusions have been reviewed. Revisions have been made to the development of this section to enhance the coherence between objectives and the sequence in presenting the conclusions, the proposed results and the discussion.

In the overall introduction part, it can be opined that CCP model is something which is also applied as per citations mentioned. However, its contents and composition are not described properly by the authors. Before jumping on problem statement along with research query, it needs to be described whether the background of the study is relying on the already defined CCP model OR parameters of the CCP are formulated / or framed as part of Methodology of this study. In case CCP model is based on already defined parameters in existing literature then it should be described in introduction and should also be aligned with Variables in methodology part. Conversely, clarification is needed in introduction along with detailed description on its parameters in methodology part.

As indicated in the introduction and background of the study, we implement a theoretical framework for professional development from a holistic ecological perspective that incorporates the paradigm of complexity, which forms the basis for defining and explaining the term sustainable career and social sustainability action in the work of sociolabor counselors. The CCP model is fully aligned with the contributions and parameters found in the literature by both national and international authors (e.g., Taveira & Rodríguez Moreno, 2010; Carrillo González, 2021; Carlson et al., 2006; Hirschi et al., 2022; Savickas, 2012; MacMahon et al., 2013; MacMahon & Whatson, 2011; De Vos et al., 2020).

The descriptions of the model in the background and introduction sections have been revised, including changes to the wording and the inclusion of additional references that allow a better identification of its components from the parameters considered in the literature. The dimensions of the CCP model and its phases have been clearly identified. The study is oriented toward the product and impact of the self-application of the model, not to the process generated. In relation to the study variables within the methodological section (heading instruments and study variables), the dimensions that both instruments evaluate and important variables have been specified in the penultimate section preceding the section on analysis techniques. Regarding the discussion group, we have more clearly specified the criteria and dimensions considered and have identified the variables used in the applied script.

Greater precision has been included for some methodological elements, such as instruments, data collection strategies and samples.

 Figure 1 is blur and couldn’t be understood well. Insert high resolution figure.

In relation to the graphics provided, we have verified on our computers that the view is clear. We have reattached the file for you to check.

Line 150-155: Authors used the word ‘aims’ which is incorrect. These can be objectives rather than being called aims.

This issue has been addressed.

Methodological Construct: Sub-sections are not in proper sequence. For example, instruments and variables are not in an appropriate place vis-à-vis sequence is concerned. There is a need to revisit the methodology thoroughly and also include a flow diagram to describe the methodology. Moreover, there is also a need to add parameters used for CCP Model and how SWOT table is constructed. In line 256, the word ‘triangulation’ is mentioned which needs to be clarified how it has been done for the purpose of the paper?

The sequence of methodological elements was carried out in accordance with the criteria of the template of the journal Sustainability. We have thoroughly reviewed the methodological elements and have included a flow chart to describe the methodology and visually clarify the sequence (new Figure 2).

Regarding the second issue, we have added the parameters used and have explained the construction of the SWOT table.

 Justify the relevance of Figure 2. If justified properly, add high resolution instead of blur version used.

We reviewed Figure 2, which sought to highlight the most frequent terms included in the analysis. We decided to eliminate this figure as it does not specifically contribute to the analysis.

Table 2: There is a need to add labels to SWOT Factors, e.g. S-1 for Strength 1, W-1 for Weakness 1, O-1 for Opportunity 1, T-1 for Threat 1 and so on. This will help in referring to the inside discussion part. Besides, threats are not well conceived. There is a need to revisit Threats by drawing boundary with weaknesses.

In Table 2, labels have been added to the SWOT factors in line as suggested by the reviewer. The codes have been included in the table and in the discussion.

We reviewed the SWOT elements and clarified some threats to better highlight the limitations and weaknesses.

 Discussion is underdeveloped and needs to be revisited thoroughly. It should supplement discussion against all SWOT factors, which is totally missing at the moment.

We have revised this discussion and have extended it with a discussion of all the SWOT factors.

Vuelva a revisar la Conclusión y el Resumen después de abordar todo lo anterior.

Hemos revisado las conclusiones y el resumen y revisado ambas secciones, con un enfoque particular en asegurar la coherencia entre las conclusiones y los objetivos del estudio.

 REVIEWER 3

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Quality of English Language, Moderate English changes required.

An expert company has been hired to translate and proofread the article in depth.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

The results have been reviewed and improved in the area of sustainable development based on the objectives and sequence of the study.

Consistent with our objectives, the results—particularly those of the second part—connect sociolabor counseling with sustainability, and their sequence is thus explicitly connected with SDGs.

Self-Application of the CCP Model in socio-labor guidance professionals: evaluation of the impact on their careers and on the action of social sustainability.

We have modified the title.

This article is an innovative way of measuring the impact of Professional Career Construction (CCP) on the socio-labor guidance professionals’ careers and actions of social sustainability.

Thank you very much for your comment valuing the contribution of the study.

There is a need to state how the monitoring method was done in Stage 1 to measure the success of the self-application process. I am unsure if your Stage 1 (self-application) refers to the pre-test and Stage 2 to your post-test.  There was no mention of the pretest/posttest other than in the Abstract.

The erroneous reference to a pretest-posttest design has been corrected in the abstract. The detection of this error is appreciated, and the summary is now coherent with the work conducted.

The stages of the information collection process have been incorporated into a flow chart to visualize the sequence of the methodological process and the meaning of both stages: 1) application of the questionnaire and (2) conducting of a group discussion.

Regarding the coded statements: be consistent with how lines are quoted – phrases or sentences?

The consistency of the codes used and the evidence shown have been reviewed. Additionally, throughout the manuscript, codes have been included in the SWOT to facilitate discussion. The relationship between the SDGs and the categories and subcategories has also been highlighted.

 On sentence construction:

a.     Minor grammar lapses are observed, particularly on parallelism (e.g., pp. 151-155; 216; 199-201). 

b.    Some sentences were vague, confusing the readers on what the researchers meant. Some important words were omitted, leaving the sentence vague. Examples:

                                               i.     “According to [19] …”

                                             ii.     “Of note, [2] studied, in detail, the skill profile and the needs of professional counselors…”

                                           iii.     “As stated by [15], we are situated…”

The names were replaced by the citations. Consider including the author’s name.

An expert company has been hired to translate and proofread the article in depth.

The evidence provided includes the codes used in the coding and categorization to guarantee the anonymity of the participants in accordance with ethical criteria.

 Please check if coded statements are supportive of the generated theme. Example: “Another barrier is the shortage of job offers [DEPEN1] and access to stable positions or promotions:  More or less the same functions, better interim salary (Subject 50). I don’t see here how the coded statement supports the “shortage of job offers” theme.

Se ha revisado la evidencia, y se ha eliminado el citado fragmento correspondiente al Sujeto 50 del ejemplo destacado.

 Verifique el nombre de la Tabla 2; es vago

El título de la Tabla 2 se ha hecho más específico.

Encuentre una forma de evitar binarios como and/or y his/her. Eso se suma a la confusión de la construcción de oraciones.

Este problema ha sido abordado.

 En general, el documento pudo lograr su doble objetivo.

Gracias por su apreciación y por leer el manuscrito con tanto detalle. Sin duda, nuestras modificaciones ayudarán a mejorar su divulgación científica.

 REVIEWER 2

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE

Quality of English Language, Extensive editing of English language and style required.

An expert company has again revised the manuscript in depth and provided extensive editing of the English language and style.

Special attention has been given to this point by consulting translation experts, who did not detect errors in the translated language and style.

A second quality certificate has been sent to the Editorial Board.

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

In the first round of reviews, the study background was reviewed in depth. It was clarified that this field has little previous research, and additional relevant literature was cited to clarify and highlight the theoretical approaches of the study. The aspects that characterize the relationship of professional development to sustainability were specified, and the concept of a sustainable career was clearly highlighted in addition to the factors that characterize it in connection with SDGs. Furthermore, previous and current theoretical backgrounds and empirical research, both internationally and nationally, were incorporated. Additional references were added as needed (De Vos et al., 2020; Argyropoulou et al., 2020). Some revisions (paragraph 7) and additional development necessitated an increase to the word count that we hope the journal will find acceptable.

In the second round of reviews, the background of the study has been reviewed again in detail.

Based on this analysis, the following changes have been incorporated into the manuscript:

 - The perspective of the world context in relation to the employment situation has been broadened with respect to the pandemic as well as the sociopolitical crises of the last two years. In this regard, some data from the latest ILO report have been included (The International Labour Organization: World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends 2023.

https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/WCMS_865332/lang--es/index.htm) [86]

- Aspects related to sustainable development in relation to professional development have been more solidly introduced, and new references have been added [1,8,9,25,36,37,40,55,73,78,86,89,90]. Sustainable vocational development has been related to the following concepts: "career self-management", "integration of personal values", "sense of one's career", "personal satisfaction", and the ability to "modify behavior and assume active behavior” in decision-making.

- Information on professional guidance models has been included. Beyond the incorporation of the integral guidance models, according to the first review, the perspective of the systemic model has been broadened. This allows us to understand the complexity of people’s professional development in contexts of permanent change.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

The references have been reviewed and are considered relevant to the study. In addition, in response to the reviewer’s comments, we have incorporated additional references as needed.

The references have been renumbered to properly integrate the new references in the body of the text.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

In the first round of reviews, the correspondence of methodological elements was reviewed in depth and improved as follows:

-We clarified the formulation of the purpose and objectives to better highlight the relationship between the main objective of the study and sustainable development.

-The procedure section now includes the design, script and questions used in the discussion group technique.

-We clarified the instruments and techniques for the collection of information, including the discussion group. Complementation has been included in the title.

-In Table 1, the category system, the relationship between the categories and subcategories with the linked SDGs has been better highlighted.

In the second round of review, the coherence of the design and the methodological elements proposed have been revised.

In this regard, we have made the following changes:

-        We have included the questions that guide the investigation in a clear manner.

-        We have not included a specific statistical hypothesis considering the type of study that was conducted.  

-        We have reviewed the research questions, object of study, research objectives and methodological approach. We feel that they correspond and that the design has internal coherence from our professional point of view.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

This aspect has been reviewed in depth, and revisions have been made to improve the argumentation.

Specifically, in the second round, the common thread of the discussion has been reviewed and improved. It has been structured according to the results and objectives of the study. Certain arguments and interpretations have been reinforced and completed by taking into account the contributions of more studies and related work. Regarding objective 1, the relevance of the impact it generates in the CCP model is presented with respect to the individual aspect for counselors’ professional development and the social aspect it represents for the guiding function and, consequently, for achieving the SDGs. Furthermore, its effects for certain domains or dimensions have been specified.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

In the first round of reviews, we made additional edits to the manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ suggestions. We believe that the results are now presented in a clear and coherent way that considers the stated objectives.

In the second round, the presentation of the results has been reviewed in depth, and the following changes have been made for clarity:

-        The order in which the results are presented is according to the sequence of objectives.

Consequently, some headings are reversed.

In addition, a new section has been included so that the presentation of the triangulated results (the integration of the results obtained in each phase in a new analysis) is clearer according to the sequence.

The corresponding objectives are also linked.

 As such, it the order is as follows:

3.1. Satisfaction with the experience of the self-application of the CCP model (objective 1(a))

3.2. Career progression (objective 1(b))
3.3. Perception of the social impact of orientation actions (objective 2).

3.4. Integration of results on the impact of the CCP model (added section)

-        The different sections have been more clearly introduced and concluded to maintain the common thread.

Is the article adequately referenced?

The references used and the article itself have been reviewed again in depth. We have made several revisions to the manuscript, including broadening the discussion and incorporating new literature that allows us to better justify the object of study. We believe that the article is now adequately justified by the theoretical review.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

In the first round of reviews, the conclusions were reviewed. Revisions were made to the development of this section to enhance the coherence between objectives and the sequence in presenting the conclusions, the proposed results, and the discussion.

In the second round, an in-depth review of the quality of the conclusions has been presented.

All conclusions are derived from the results and evidence obtained in this empirical study. They are presented as a response to the objectives to the impact of the CCP model for the professional careers of the counselors (objective 1) as well as in their training to improve their social action (objective 2). The conclusions are structured around the integrated analysis of strengths, weaknesses, threats, and opportunities generated by the CCP model and highlight its positive effects on achieving the SDGs. Some changes and clarifications have been incorporated in the wording to improve the clarity of the arguments.

I have seen the revised document in detail. Although authors tried to improve, it is not upto the mark to qualify for publication. I would like to refer the matter to Academic Editor to review the revised submission vis-a-vis my comments prior to take any decision.

In revised revised version, perhaps authors have used cut n paste option for the existing text, just to show that changes done in track change mode. However, there is no actual change done at most of places where it is claimed or mentioned. It is totally unprofessional attitude and not acceptable at al. 

Anyway, I recommend to give authors another chance to improve the paper against the original comments and re-submit with substantial improvement, prior to decide the matter.

We have made changes and are awaiting commentary by the reviewer and the academic editor.

The version sent was based on the changes made by the research team and subsequently integrated the changes made by the translation company. We believe that this may have created some confusion in the way the reviewer considered our response since entire revised paragraphs were cut and pasted since we were working with two versions of the document.

We apologize for this misunderstanding. More importantly, we are sorry that due to this misunderstanding, our scientific integrity was called into question. We have worked with maximum scientific rigor as well as professional and academic sincerity and honesty and with the utmost respect for the essential work performed by the external and independent reviewers, whose work contributes to improving the quality and suitability of the articles published in scientific journals.

We certainly appreciate the opportunity for a second review and revision of the manuscript since improvement is always possible. We hope that the changes in this new revision will be appropriate and of interest. If any issue remains unclear, we remain at your disposal to address the specific areas that need to be improved.