The Signaling Paradox: Revisiting the Impacts of Overeducation in the Chinese Labor Market
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIntroduction and literature review
Several sections of the manuscript lack proper citations. It is essential to ensure that every significant claim, especially those introducing new statistics or trends, is supported by appropriate references. Additionally, verify that all in-text citations are formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Specifically, provide citations for claims about overeducation spreading in developing countries. Please see the comments provided regarding this in the manuscript.
Terms and concepts are sometimes introduced without sufficient explanation. Simplifying complex statements will enhance readability and comprehension. Avoid abrupt usage of technical terms without prior introduction. Please see the comments provided regarding this in the manuscript.
The introduction should address the severity of the problem, the study’s significance to the field, core assumptions, aims, and their relation to relevant theories or concepts. Currently, the introduction is well-written but lacks these crucial elements. Explicitly state the research gap and the research question. Provide a brief review of what other researchers have done and how this study builds upon or diverges from previous work.
Methodology
Provide more details about the China General Social Survey (CGSS), including its validity, reliability, response rate, and any available methodological reports. Explain how the survey ensures the reliability of its findings. Clarify the process and criteria for selecting the sub-sample from the larger dataset to ensure its validity.
Elaborate on the validity of the sub-sample and how you have ensured that it is representative. Discuss the steps taken to mitigate biases and ensure the robustness of the matching process. Detail how the confounding variables were selected and justify their inclusion in the Logit model. Provide more insight into how these variables influence employment status and individual income.
Hypotheses and conceptual framework
Justify each hypothesis through the literature review. For example, if hypotheses are broken down into sub-hypotheses (e.g., Hypothesis 2.1 and 2.2), provide citations and theoretical backing for these distinctions. Clearly differentiate between hypotheses related to signalling effects and productivity effects, and provide a solid theoretical framework supporting these hypotheses.
Ensure that each hypothesis is logically structured and clearly presented. If hypotheses are broken into sub-hypotheses, explain the rationale and provide citations to support these distinctions.
Results and discussion
Simplify complex interpretations and ensure that all statistical findings are explained in layman's terms. Clearly articulate what the results mean in the context of the hypotheses. Make sure that the discussion logically follows from the results, highlighting how the findings support or contradict previous studies.
Discuss the implications of the findings comprehensively, considering both individual and societal perspectives. Highlight the dual effects of overeducation on personal and social productivity. Acknowledge the study’s limitations, particularly the unresolved endogeneity in the model. Suggest areas (variables?) for future research to address these limitations and provide insights that are more detailed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Introduction and literature review
[Comments 1] Several sections of the manuscript lack proper citations. It is essential to ensure that every significant claim, especially those introducing new statistics or trends, is supported by appropriate references. Additionally, verify that all in-text citations are formatted according to the journal’s guidelines. Specifically, provide citations for claims about overeducation spreading in developing countries. Please see the comments provided regarding this in the manuscript.
Response 1: In the revised manuscript, we have bolstered the arguments by adding necessary citations or data explanations to key points, thereby enhancing the strength of the arguments. We have also proofread and corrected the manuscript according to the journal's citation format guidelines, thereby improving its adherence to scholarly standards.
[Comments 2] Terms and concepts are sometimes introduced without sufficient explanation. Simplifying complex statements will enhance readability and comprehension. Avoid abrupt usage of technical terms without prior introduction. Please see the comments provided regarding this in the manuscript.
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. In the latest revisions, we have provided conceptual definitions or theoretical groundwork before using important terms and concepts such as “productivity effects” and “signaling effects”. Additionally, we have refined the text to eliminate obscurity, ambiguity, and redundancy, making the language clearer and more concise for the benefit of the readers.
[Comments 3] The introduction should address the severity of the problem, the study’s significance to the field, core assumptions, aims, and their relation to relevant theories or concepts. Currently, the introduction is well-written but lacks these crucial elements. Explicitly state the research gap and the research question. Provide a brief review of what other researchers have done and how this study builds upon or diverges from previous work.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Regarding the reviewers’ feedback, in the revised manuscript, we have rewritten the introduction section. We begin by discussing the global prevalence and research nature of the issue of excessive education, followed by an argument about its severity in China based on the country’s educational expansion and economic downturn. We introduce conflicting views from human capital theory and screening theory to highlight the dual economic effects of excessive education and their significance in understanding the issue. This sets the stage for posing the research questions addressed in this study.
Methodology
[Comments 4] Provide more details about the China General Social Survey (CGSS), including its validity, reliability, response rate, and any available methodological reports. Explain how the survey ensures the reliability of its findings. Clarify the process and criteria for selecting the sub-sample from the larger dataset to ensure its validity. Elaborate on the validity of the sub-sample and how you have ensured that it is representative.
Response 4: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revision, we have provided a detailed description of the CGSS data, which employs stratified PPS random sampling. This information, along with relevant links and explanations, can be found at the end of the document. We have justified the process and criteria for sample selection, indicating that the research sample was chosen from the entire CGSS2015 dataset to correspond with the research questions. Considering China’s legal requirements, economic conditions, and questionnaire quality, we have filtered the income variable. This adjustment slightly impacts the sample’s representativeness but remains within an acceptable range. Overall, after comparing the differences between the research subjects in macro statistical data and sample data, the sample demonstrates good representativeness.
[Comments 5] Discuss the steps taken to mitigate biases and ensure the robustness of the matching process. Detail how the confounding variables were selected and justify their inclusion in the Logit model. Provide more insight into how these variables influence employment status and individual income.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have added literature support for the methodological section. We provide a detailed explanation of the data processing procedures and specifics, such as the selection of confounding variables, the choice of control variables, and the rationale behind variable handling. Due to space limitations, we have only provided guiding principles or rules for the selection of confounding variables, with detailed justifications available in the cited literature.
Hypotheses and conceptual framework
[Comments 6] Justify each hypothesis through the literature review. For example, if hypotheses are broken down into sub-hypotheses (e.g., Hypothesis 2.1 and 2.2), provide citations and theoretical backing for these distinctions. Clearly differentiate between hypotheses related to signalling effects and productivity effects, and provide a solid theoretical framework supporting these hypotheses.
Ensure that each hypothesis is logically structured and clearly presented. If hypotheses are broken into sub-hypotheses, explain the rationale and provide citations to support these distinctions.
Response 6: Thanks for the suggestion. We have rewritten the research hypotheses section. We have added the necessary argumentation and literature support for each hypothesis, enhancing the rationale behind them. This reinforces the unique aspects of overeducation if each hypothesis is validated, such as its form (e.g., apparent overeducation vs. real overeducation, long-term vs. short-term phenomena), causes (e.g., educational factors, economic factors, or both), and impacts (e.g., on individuals, organizations, and society).
Results and discussion
[Comments 7] Simplify complex interpretations and ensure that all statistical findings are explained in layman's terms. Clearly articulate what the results mean in the context of the hypotheses. Make sure that the discussion logically follows from the results, highlighting how the findings support or contradict previous studies.
Discuss the implications of the findings comprehensively, considering both individual and societal perspectives. Highlight the dual effects of overeducation on personal and social productivity. Acknowledge the study’s limitations, particularly the unresolved endogeneity in the model. Suggest areas (variables?) for future research to address these limitations and provide insights that are more detailed.
Response 7: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have simplified some of the obscure expressions. We have expanded the discussion section, enhancing the dialogue with existing literature. We focus on arguing the reasons and potential impacts of the insignificant signaling effect of overeducation and the specific manifestations and significance of the productivity effect of overeducation. Additionally, we have addressed the limitations of the paper, such as endogeneity issues and insufficient attention to quality. We have outlined prospects for future research, detailed in the final paragraph of the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1- ٍSome sentences need reformulating to become clearer, like the following: 'hitting a historical high since the early 21st century'.
2- Some claims need to be based on the literature, like the following: "and has gradually spread to developing countries, particularly in East Asia".
3- Authors need to define importand terms, like 'signaling' from the beginning. This term is in the title, so it needs to be defined.
4- When talking about rates the overall should be clarified. For example, the authors say: 'the growth rate of returns'. It is not clear returns of what! Also: "while the overeducation rate among college graduates exceeded 90 percent", percent of what?
5- Again, the authors need to pay more attention to defining terms like 'productivity' or 'screening'. The authors need also to pay more attention to describing the difference of terms, like 'employed' and 'self-employed'.
6- You say: "The logarithm of annual total income is added as a dependent variable". Why is the logarithm is the variable and not just the annual total income?
7- The authors need to base the way they present results on the literature. For example to say on whom they depended to present the Logit regression results, as these is relatively new. They need to do that for all the tables in the results section.
8-Authors need to add a Discussion Section. This section should depend heavily on the literature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds editing.
Author Response
[Comments 1] Some sentences need reformulating to become clearer, like the following: 'hitting a historical high since the early 21st century'.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have proofread the entire text, correcting obscure and ambiguous expressions.
[Comments 2] Some claims need to be based on the literature, like the following: "and has gradually spread to developing countries, particularly in East Asia".
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have added data explanations and literature support for the key points.
[Comments 3] Authors need to define important terms, like 'signaling' from the beginning. This term is in the title, so it needs to be defined.
Response 3: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have provided conceptual definitions and theoretical groundwork between the application of important concepts and terms.
[Comments 4] When talking about rates the overall should be clarified. For example, the authors say: 'the growth rate of returns'. It is not clear returns of what! Also: "while the overeducation rate among college graduates exceeded 90 percent", percent of what?
Response 4: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have refined similar expressions to enhance precision in the text.
[Comments 5] Again, the authors need to pay more attention to defining terms like 'productivity' or 'screening'. The authors need also to pay more attention to describing the difference of terms, like 'employed' and 'self-employed'.
Response 5: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have reintroduced or defined similar concepts earlier in the text.
[Comments 6] You say: "The logarithm of annual total income is added as a dependent variable". Why is the logarithm is the variable and not just the annual total income?
Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have included explanations and supporting literature regarding logarithmic forms.
[Comments 7] The authors need to base the way they present results on the literature. For example to say on whom they depended to present the Logit regression results, as these is relatively new. They need to do that for all the tables in the results section.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have included literature support on method selection, variable handling, and analytical steps.
[Comments 8] Authors need to add a Discussion Section. This section should depend heavily on the literature.
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. In the revised manuscript, we have added a discussion section focusing on the reasons and impacts of the insignificant signaling effect of excessive education in China, supported by data results and literature. We specifically address the manifestations and influences of productivity effects.
[Comments 9] Comments on the Quality of English Language. Needs editing.
Response 9: Thanks for the suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we have made corrections and enhancements to the English expressions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI recommend this paper for publication.
It is well structured and consistent research conducted on a relevant sample. The conclusions are well referenced with existing literature. Results are relevant not only for the individual (future) employees and for employers, but also for educational policy (educators and decision makers).
Further continuation of this research is recommended: it may target the educational policy implications (length/content of education) and/or particular sectors/industries.
Author Response
[Comments] I recommend this paper for publication. It is well structured and consistent research conducted on a relevant sample. The conclusions are well referenced with existing literature. Results are relevant not only for the individual (future) employees and for employers, but also for educational policy (educators and decision makers). Further continuation of this research is recommended: it may target the educational policy implications (length/content of education) and/or particular sectors/industries.
Response: Thank you for your feedback. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new discussion section that focuses on the reasons and impacts of the insignificant signaling effect of excessive education in China, as well as the specific manifestations and influences of productivity effects. In the implications and conclusion sections, we have argued the potential implications of our findings for government policies, university management, corporate human resource strategies, and individual educational investments and career planning. We have also detailed the limitations of the paper and suggested directions for future research.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI really thank the authors for their great effort and involvment in improving the manuscript. Still, one issue remains. Why are the results of the Logit regression are presented in this way. The authors should rely on the literature and previous studies who described how to present logit regression or authors who presented logit regression in their paper.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeeds editing.
Author Response
[Comments]: I really thank the authors for their great effort and involvement in improving the manuscript. Still one issue remains. Why are the results of the Logit repression are presented in this way. The authors should rely on the literature and previous studies who described how to present logit repression or authors who presented logit regression in their paper.
[Response]: Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. In the previous revised version, we suspect that the issue might be related to the presentation format of the Logit regression in Table 2. In fact, Table 2 is a simplified and consolidated version of two tables outputted by Stata: the Logit regression table and the CSA hypothesis test table (both tables share the same variables in their rows). Considering that the main purpose of the Logit regression in the PSM estimation is to calculate propensity scores, the previous version simplified or merged the original tables. If we have correctly understood your concern, to avoid such misunderstandings, we have presented the tables separately in this revised version to show the most complete Logit regression results and CSA test results. Please refer to Table 2 and Table 3 in the paper for details. Thank you again!
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSeems better.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNot bad.
