Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R

Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388" }, "headline": "Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R", "datePublished": "2025-12-10T11:52:30", "dateModified": "2026-03-12T09:18:10", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Daniel Jesayanto Jaya" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Endang Wati" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Yogi Novario Nandes" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Ilma Zahriyatun Nadhiroh" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Reza Bakhrun Fidianto Pade" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "This study applies K-Means clustering to segment job applicant test data from a construction consulting firm to support data-driven screening decisions. From 161 applicants, 30 candidates who met the document-screening requirements were invited for in-person testing and included in the analysis. Three assessment variables were used: AutoCAD drafting skills, planning and supervision report-writing skills, and adaptability. Using R, K-Means clustering was performed to partition candidates into three groups based on multivariate similarity patterns, and the resulting group structure was visualized using 2D and 3D scatter plots. The clustering output revealed distinct competency profiles: one group characterized by generally lower scores across the three variables, a second group with moderate and mixed scores, and a third group with consistently higher scores. Internal validity indices suggested modest separation (mean silhouette = 0.16; Davies–Bouldin Index = 2.05), consistent with exploratory clustering on a small pre-screened sample. These patterns provide a structured interpretation of applicant diversity and can inform practical recruitment actions such as prioritizing candidates for interviews, identifying borderline profiles for additional evaluation, and designing targeted upskilling recommendations for specific competency gaps. Overall, this study demonstrates how unsupervised clustering of routine recruitment test results can enhance transparency and consistency in early-stage applicant evaluation within construction-sector hiring." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2", "name": "Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction..." } } ] } Home Browse Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Jaya DJ, Ramdhani WM, Wati E et al. Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172383.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] Daniel Jesayanto Jaya https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1940-6302 1,2 , Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3816-6100 3 , Endang Wati https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4264-7984 3 , Yogi Novario Nandes https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4028-3672 4 , Ilma Zahriyatun Nadhiroh https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0352-2691 4 , Reza Bakhrun Fidianto Pade https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6281-8418 3 Daniel Jesayanto Jaya https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1940-6302 1,2 , Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani https://orcid.org/0009-0000-3816-6100 3 , [...] Endang Wati https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4264-7984 3 , Yogi Novario Nandes https://orcid.org/0009-0000-4028-3672 4 , Ilma Zahriyatun Nadhiroh https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0352-2691 4 , Reza Bakhrun Fidianto Pade https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6281-8418 3 PUBLISHED 12 Mar 2026 Author details Author details 1 Technology and Vocational Education and Training, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 2 Building Engineering Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, East Jakarta, Special Capital Region of Jakarta, Indonesia 3 Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 4 English Language Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia Daniel Jesayanto Jaya Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Endang Wati Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Yogi Novario Nandes Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Ilma Zahriyatun Nadhiroh Roles: Funding Acquisition, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Reza Bakhrun Fidianto Pade Roles: Funding Acquisition, Software, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS This article is included in the RPackage gateway. Abstract This study applies K-Means clustering to segment job applicant test data from a construction consulting firm to support data-driven screening decisions. From 161 applicants, 30 candidates who met the document-screening requirements were invited for in-person testing and included in the analysis. Three assessment variables were used: AutoCAD drafting skills, planning and supervision report-writing skills, and adaptability. Using R, K-Means clustering was performed to partition candidates into three groups based on multivariate similarity patterns, and the resulting group structure was visualized using 2D and 3D scatter plots. The clustering output revealed distinct competency profiles: one group characterized by generally lower scores across the three variables, a second group with moderate and mixed scores, and a third group with consistently higher scores. Internal validity indices suggested modest separation (mean silhouette = 0.16; Davies–Bouldin Index = 2.05), consistent with exploratory clustering on a small pre-screened sample. These patterns provide a structured interpretation of applicant diversity and can inform practical recruitment actions such as prioritizing candidates for interviews, identifying borderline profiles for additional evaluation, and designing targeted upskilling recommendations for specific competency gaps. Overall, this study demonstrates how unsupervised clustering of routine recruitment test results can enhance transparency and consistency in early-stage applicant evaluation within construction-sector hiring. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords K-Means Clustering; data-driven recruitment; workforce selection; cluster visualization; construction competencies Corresponding Author(s) Daniel Jesayanto Jaya ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Daniel Jesayanto Jaya Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: This research was funded by scholarships awarded by the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP), with Grant Numbers 202312211239164 (Daniel Jesayanto Jaya), 202407112005435 (Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani), 202406111202933 (Endang Wati), 202406111204346 (Yogi Novario Nandes), 202407111205431 (Ilma Zahriyatun Nadhiroh), and 202404111201727 (Reza Bakhrun Fidianto Pade). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Copyright: © 2026 Jaya DJ et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Jaya DJ, Ramdhani WM, Wati E et al. Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172383.2 ) First published: 10 Dec 2025, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172383.1 ) Latest published: 12 Mar 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172383.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 This revised version addresses the reviewers’ methodological, transparency, and interpretive concerns by strengthening analytical rigor, clarifying the study scope, and situating the findings within current discussions on data-driven recruitment and algorithmic governance. The manuscript now provides a clear justification of participant selection, explicitly explaining that clustering was conducted on 30 applicants who passed document screening from an initial pool of 161 applicants. The screening criteria are described in detail, and the analysis is framed as an exploratory examination of a pre-screened assessment sample rather than a predictive or comprehensive recruitment optimization model. Methodological revisions include clearer documentation of data preprocessing, confirmation that all variables were measured on a uniform 0–100 scale, and explicit discussion of centroid initialization and algorithm sensitivity. To address robustness concerns, the clustering analysis was replicated using multiple random initializations in R (nstart), and solution stability was assessed. Internal cluster validity metrics (silhouette coefficient and Davies–Bouldin Index) are now reported as descriptive diagnostics, reinforcing the exploratory nature of the findings. A brief outlier and sensitivity check has also been added, indicating that the cluster structure is not driven by a single extreme observation. To improve readability, detailed centroid iteration and distance calculation tables have been moved to extended data, while the main text focuses on final clustering outcomes and their interpretation. The Results and Discussion sections have been reorganized to emphasize competency profiles, visual interpretation using 2D, 3D, and hierarchical plots, and cautious analytical insights. The Introduction and Discussion have been strengthened by incorporating international perspectives on AI-assisted recruitment, transparency, and fairness, including references to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, U.S. EEOC guidance on adverse impact under Title VII, and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. Data availability and ethical statements have been updated, and extended data have been deposited in Zenodo under a new DOI. This revised version addresses the reviewers’ methodological, transparency, and interpretive concerns by strengthening analytical rigor, clarifying the study scope, and situating the findings within current discussions on data-driven recruitment and algorithmic governance. The manuscript now provides a clear justification of participant selection, explicitly explaining that clustering was conducted on 30 applicants who passed document screening from an initial pool of 161 applicants. The screening criteria are described in detail, and the analysis is framed as an exploratory examination of a pre-screened assessment sample rather than a predictive or comprehensive recruitment optimization model. Methodological revisions include clearer documentation of data preprocessing, confirmation that all variables were measured on a uniform 0–100 scale, and explicit discussion of centroid initialization and algorithm sensitivity. To address robustness concerns, the clustering analysis was replicated using multiple random initializations in R (nstart), and solution stability was assessed. Internal cluster validity metrics (silhouette coefficient and Davies–Bouldin Index) are now reported as descriptive diagnostics, reinforcing the exploratory nature of the findings. A brief outlier and sensitivity check has also been added, indicating that the cluster structure is not driven by a single extreme observation. To improve readability, detailed centroid iteration and distance calculation tables have been moved to extended data, while the main text focuses on final clustering outcomes and their interpretation. The Results and Discussion sections have been reorganized to emphasize competency profiles, visual interpretation using 2D, 3D, and hierarchical plots, and cautious analytical insights. The Introduction and Discussion have been strengthened by incorporating international perspectives on AI-assisted recruitment, transparency, and fairness, including references to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, U.S. EEOC guidance on adverse impact under Title VII, and the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act. Data availability and ethical statements have been updated, and extended data have been deposited in Zenodo under a new DOI. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Sonia Najam Shaikh See the authors' detailed response to the review by Deepak Gupta READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Introduction 1.1 Research background In the modern workplace, workforce selection is a critical component of human resource development, particularly in sectors that require a combination of technical expertise and adaptive capability. Career development and career transformation are influenced not only by formal qualifications but also by individuals’ ability to adapt to changing work environments and collaborate effectively with diverse stakeholders. Data-driven approaches to workforce analysis have therefore gained attention as tools to support more structured and transparent evaluation processes ( Pala, 2021 ). Recruitment involves more than sourcing candidates; it requires systematic decision-making informed by job analysis, organizational needs, and available labor characteristics ( Widodo, 2018 ). Job analysis plays a central role in defining task requirements, competency expectations, and qualification standards, thereby helping organizations align applicants with role-specific demands. From the applicant’s perspective, successful job search outcomes depend on understanding personal competencies, evaluating labor market opportunities, and developing skills that match employer expectations ( London, 1973 ). In the construction sector, technical competencies such as AutoCAD drafting, the ability to prepare planning and supervision reports, and adaptability to dynamic project environments are particularly valued ( Gangl, 2003 ). These competencies are increasingly important in large-scale infrastructure development contexts. In Indonesia, national strategic projects such as the Nusantara Capital City (Ibu Kota Nusantara, IKN) development have intensified demand for construction personnel with both technical proficiency and social adaptability ( Irmawan et al., 2023 ; Supriyanti et al., 2023 ). Managing and interpreting recruitment assessment data in such contexts presents practical challenges, especially when organizations must evaluate multiple competency dimensions simultaneously. Cluster analysis offers a data-driven approach to explore patterns within applicant assessment data by grouping individuals with similar characteristics. Clustering techniques partition data into internally homogeneous and externally heterogeneous groups, thereby supporting structured interpretation of complex multivariate information ( Jain et al., 1999 ). Among these techniques, K-Means clustering is widely used due to its computational simplicity and interpretability, making it suitable for exploratory analysis of recruitment-related datasets. In recruitment contexts, clustering can be applied to post-screening assessment data to identify competency profiles rather than to make automated hiring decisions. Beyond operational efficiency, the use of data-driven tools in recruitment raises broader issues of transparency, governance, and fairness in algorithm-assisted selection. International guidance emphasizes that AI-enabled assessment should be accompanied by risk management, documentation, and ongoing monitoring of unintended impacts ( NIST, 2023 ). In addition, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance highlights that employers should assess whether algorithmic or AI-based selection procedures produce adverse impact under Title VII and aligns such assessment with the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures ( EEOC, 2023 ). Similarly, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act classifies certain AI systems used in employment-related contexts as high-risk, reinforcing expectations for accountability and safeguards when analytics influence employment decisions ( European Union, 2024 ). Accordingly, this study positions K-Means clustering as an exploratory decision-support technique rather than an automated hiring system; cluster labels are interpreted cautiously as descriptive competency profiles and are intended to complement human review rather than replace managerial judgment. This study applies K-Means clustering to recruitment test data from a construction consulting firm, focusing on candidates who passed document screening and completed in-person assessments. Using three core variables—AutoCAD drafting skills, planning and supervision report-writing skills, and adaptability—the study demonstrates how unsupervised clustering can support exploratory analysis of applicant competency profiles within a real organizational context. 1.2 Literature review Clustering is an unsupervised analytical technique used to group objects into clusters based on attribute similarity, such that objects within the same cluster exhibit higher similarity than those in other clusters ( Jain et al., 1999 ). By minimizing within-cluster variation and maximizing between-cluster differences, clustering supports pattern discovery and interpretation in complex datasets ( Manikandan et al., 2018 ; Darmi & Setiawan, 2016 ). For organizational and workforce analytics, clustering provides a data-driven means of understanding heterogeneity among individuals without requiring predefined class labels. Among various clustering approaches, K-Means clustering is one of the most widely applied methods due to its simplicity, efficiency, and interpretability. K-Means partitions data into k clusters by iteratively assigning observations to the nearest centroid and updating centroid positions until convergence is achieved ( Jain et al., 1999 ). Because of its relatively low computational cost, K-Means is suitable for applied settings where rapid analysis and transparent interpretation are required ( Fadhli, 2017 ). Previous studies demonstrate applicability across domains. In educational research, K-Means has been used to analyze student preferences and learning achievement patterns ( Firza & Sarjono, 2020 ). In organizational contexts, it has been applied to group employees based on discipline and performance indicators to support human resource decision-making ( Agustina & Prihandoko, 2018 ). Comparative studies suggest that while alternatives such as Fuzzy C-Means may offer advantages in some conditions, K-Means remains computationally efficient and practical for many real-world applications ( Wiharto & Suryani, 2020 ). 1.2.1 K-Means algorithm K-Means is a partition-based clustering algorithm that divides data into a predefined number of clusters by minimizing the average distance between data points and their respective cluster centroids ( Widiyaningtyas et al., 2017 ). The algorithm operates iteratively, beginning with the selection of initial centroid values and proceeding through repeated reassignment of data points based on distance calculations until cluster membership stabilizes ( Purba et al., 2018 ). Prior work emphasizes that K-Means can be sensitive to initialization and the scale of input variables, highlighting the need for transparent methodological choices in applied studies ( Jain et al., 1999 ). 1.2.2 Worker recruitment Recruitment is a strategic organizational process aimed at attracting and selecting individuals whose competencies align with job requirements and organizational objectives. Job analysis plays a critical role in defining tasks, responsibilities, and qualification standards, thereby guiding recruitment and selection decisions ( Widodo, 2018 ). In the construction sector, recruitment emphasizes a combination of technical competencies—such as drafting and report preparation—and adaptive capabilities, reflecting the dynamic and collaborative nature of construction projects ( Gangl, 2003 ). The job search process seeks to match job seekers with appropriate opportunities and can be supported through technology-enabled and data-driven methods ( Green et al., 2011 ). Given the multidimensionality of applicant data, clustering methods such as K-Means offer a way to organize assessment results into interpretable competency profiles that can support early-stage evaluation ( Jain et al., 1999 ). 2. Methods 2.1 Research Design This study employed a quantitative, exploratory research design using unsupervised clustering to analyze recruitment assessment data from a construction consulting firm. The primary objective was to explore competency-based grouping patterns among job applicants using K-Means clustering as a decision-support tool, rather than to predict hiring outcomes or evaluate post-employment performance. Figure 1. Workflow research diagram. 2.2 Data source and participant selection The data were obtained from CV Ardantama Putra Perkasa as part of its internal recruitment process. Although the vacancy was advertised through JobStreet Indonesia, all data analyzed in this study originated exclusively from the company’s internal screening and testing procedures. A total of 161 applicants applied for the position. Applicants were shortlisted through the company’s standard document-screening procedure conducted by the HR team and the hiring unit. Screening focused on administrative completeness and role relevance, including: (i) completeness of required documents; (ii) educational background and relevance to construction consulting work; (iii) evidence of relevant technical exposure (e.g., drafting/reporting-related tasks or portfolio where available); and (iv) basic eligibility criteria specified in the vacancy announcement. From this screening stage, 30 candidates who met the minimum requirements were invited for in-person testing. Only these 30 candidates were included in the clustering analysis because complete assessment scores were available for all three variables. This design improves internal consistency of the tested dataset but limits generalizability to the full applicant pool. 2.3 Assessment variables Candidates were evaluated using three competency indicators relevant to construction consulting roles: 1. AutoCAD drafting skills; 2. planning and supervision report-writing skills; 3. adaptability. Each variable was assessed on a numerical scale from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating stronger performance. 2.4 Data preprocessing, outlier, and sensitivity checks The dataset was reviewed for completeness and consistency. All 30 candidates had complete scores across the three assessment variables; therefore, no records were excluded at this stage. Because all variables were measured using the same scale (0–100), the analysis used raw scores without additional normalization to preserve the meaning of the original assessment scores. A basic outlier and sensitivity check was conducted by examining distances to cluster centroids and visually inspecting the 3D scatter plot. A leave-one-out sensitivity test removing the most distant observation did not materially change the overall three-cluster interpretation; validity metrics changed only slightly (mean silhouette increased from 0.16 to approximately 0.18; DBI remained approximately 2.0). This suggests the reported structure is not driven by a single extreme case. 2.5 Clustering procedure K-Means clustering was applied to group candidates based on similarity across the three assessment variables. The number of clusters was set to k = 3, reflecting the company’s practical need to differentiate candidates into three evaluative groups for recruitment support. Initial centroid values were specified as starting points based on preliminary inspection of score distributions during exploratory analysis. These initial values were used to initiate iteration rather than to impose predetermined outcome categories. Euclidean distance was used to assign candidates to the nearest centroid, after which centroid positions were updated as the mean of cluster members. The algorithm iterated until cluster assignments stabilized. The clustering workflow was implemented using a combination of spreadsheet-based calculations (for transparency of manual steps) and the R programming language (for reproducibility, validity checks, and visualization). Intermediate iteration tables are provided as extended data. 2.5.1 Initialization and stability checks Because K-Means can be sensitive to initialization, the analysis was repeated in R using the built-in kmeans() function with multiple random initializations (e.g., nstart = 50). Solution stability was assessed by comparing convergence outcomes (within-cluster sum of squares) and checking consistency of cluster memberships across repeated initializations. This step ensured that the reported three-cluster structure was not an artifact of a single starting configuration. Minor membership differences across runs occurred for borderline profiles, which is plausible in small samples with overlapping competency distributions. 2.6 Visualization and interpretation Clustering results were visualized using two-dimensional and three-dimensional scatter plots. Two-dimensional plots illustrated relationships between AutoCAD drafting skills and planning/supervision report-writing skills, while three-dimensional plots incorporated adaptability as a third axis. Clusters were subsequently labeled as “Rejected,” “Under Consideration,” and “Accepted” based on their relative position in the multivariate competency space. These labels represent analytical interpretations of score patterns and do not constitute formal hiring decisions made by the company. 2.7 Scope and methodological limitations This study focuses on exploratory grouping of recruitment assessment data from a pre-screened subset of applicants. The clustering results were not validated against final hiring decisions or post-employment performance outcomes. Accordingly, findings should be interpreted as structured analytical support rather than definitive evidence of selection effectiveness. 2.8 Cluster validity assessment To provide quantitative support for the cluster structure, internal validity indices were calculated. The silhouette coefficient was computed using Euclidean distances to estimate how well each candidate matched its assigned cluster relative to other clusters. The Davies–Bouldin Index (DBI) was calculated to evaluate average cluster similarity based on within-cluster dispersion relative to between-cluster centroid distances. These indices were interpreted as descriptive diagnostics of separation quality rather than evidence of predictive utility. 3. Results and discussion 3.1 Applicant characteristics This study analysed recruitment assessment records from CV Ardantama Putra Perkasa, obtained from the company’s internal testing and selection process. A total of 161 applicants submitted applications, of whom 30 candidates meeting minimum screening criteria were invited for in-person testing. Each candidate was assessed on three indicators measured on a 0–100 scale: AutoCAD drafting skills (X), planning and supervision report-writing skills (Y), and adaptability (Z). Candidate characteristics and scores are summarised in Table 1 . Table 1. Applicant demographic data. Respondent code Gender AutoCAD drawing skills (X) Ability to prepare planning and monitoring reports (Y) Adaptability (Z) Resp1 Female 92 75 68 Resp2 Male 68 65 66 Resp3 Male 73 86 87 Resp4 Male 69 74 73 Resp5 Male 78 72 91 Resp6 Female 84 90 92 Resp7 Male 69 76 87 Resp8 Female 95 73 76 Resp9 Female 90 80 85 Resp10 Male 68 82 68 Resp11 Male 63 75 71 Resp12 Male 75 93 77 Resp13 Female 62 72 68 Resp14 Male 90 61 72 Resp15 Female 84 63 90 Resp16 Female 94 70 89 Resp17 Female 73 87 80 Resp18 Female 71 73 95 Resp19 Female 93 62 70 Resp20 Male 90 68 89 Resp21 Female 87 94 87 Resp22 Male 60 90 64 Resp23 Female 65 64 93 Resp24 Male 69 84 75 Resp25 Male 66 63 72 Resp26 Male 95 85 93 Resp27 Male 75 80 83 Resp28 Male 92 85 93 Resp29 Male 71 71 85 Resp30 Male 92 61 88 Overall, the score distribution shows meaningful heterogeneity across candidates—particularly in adaptability and planning/supervision report-writing—indicating variation in both technical and interpersonal readiness. This variability provides a suitable basis for exploratory clustering analysis. K-Means clustering results 3.2 Using K-Means clustering with k = 3, the 30 assessed candidates were grouped into three distinct clusters based on similarity across AutoCAD drafting skills, planning and supervision report-writing skills, and adaptability. The final cluster assignments are summarized in Table 2 . These clusters represent analytical competency profiles derived from multivariate similarity patterns rather than formal hiring decisions determined by company policy. Table 2. Final clustering results. Respondent data Rejected Under consideration Accepted Clustering C1(x 1 ,y 1 ,z 1 ) C2(x 2 ,y 2 ,z 2 ) C3(x 3 ,y 3 ,z 3 ) Name MA LPP KA 67,30 78,50 71,40 73,25 73,13 88,88 91,17 75,33 83,50 Resp2 68 65 66 14,56 24,84 30,82 Cluster 1 (Rejected) Resp4 69 74 73 5,07 16,46 24,56 Resp10 68 82 68 4,93 23,28 28,66 Resp11 63 75 71 5,56 20,69 30,82 Resp13 62 72 68 9,05 23,74 33,20 Resp22 60 90 64 15,50 32,85 39,58 Resp24 69 84 75 6,79 18,13 25,27 Resp25 66 63 72 15,57 20,97 30,29 Resp17 73 87 80 13,37 16,47 21,87 Resp12 75 93 77 17,35 23,22 24,81 Resp7 69 76 87 15,89 5,46 22,45 Cluster 2 (Under Consideration) Resp23 65 64 93 26,12 12,97 30,06 Resp29 71 71 85 15,97 4,96 20,68 Resp5 78 72 91 23,26 5,32 15,52 Resp18 71 73 95 24,51 6,53 23,33 Resp3 73 86 87 18,22 13,01 21,36 Resp15 84 63 90 29,41 14,81 15,68 Resp27 75 80 83 14,00 9,21 16,83 Resp14 90 61 72 28,67 26,69 18,41 Cluster 3 (Accepted) Resp19 93 62 70 30,57 29,50 19,06 Resp1 92 75 68 25,18 28,12 15,53 Resp6 84 90 92 28,91 20,25 18,40 Resp8 95 73 76 28,61 25,28 8,74 Resp9 90 80 85 26,50 18,52 5,04 Resp16 94 70 89 33,09 20,98 8,17 Resp20 90 68 89 30,58 17,52 9,24 Resp21 87 94 87 29,52 25,07 19,44 Resp26 95 85 93 35,72 25,12 14,09 Resp28 92 85 93 33,45 22,57 13,58 Resp30 92 61 88 34,52 22,35 15,05 The first cluster is characterized by relatively lower combined scores across the three assessed competencies. The second cluster consists of candidates with moderate and mixed competency scores, reflecting intermediate profiles that may warrant further evaluation. The third cluster comprises candidates with consistently higher scores across technical and adaptive dimensions, indicating stronger and more balanced competency profiles. The clustering process involved iterative centroid updates until cluster memberships stabilized. To maintain readability, detailed iteration tables are provided as extended data, while the main text focuses on the stabilized results and their interpretation. Re-running clustering with multiple random initializations in R produced highly similar solutions, suggesting the three-cluster structure was not dependent on a single manual initialization. Minor membership differences across runs occurred for borderline profiles, which is expected in small samples with partially overlapping competency distributions. The final clustering output generated from the R environment, including cluster labels and competency scores for each applicant, is presented in Table 3 . Table 3. R-generated data table. No AutoCAD_Drafting Planning_Supervision_ Reports Adaptability Cluster Category 1 68 65 66 1 Rejected 2 69 74 73 1 Rejected 3 68 82 68 1 Rejected 4 63 75 71 1 Rejected 5 62 72 68 1 Rejected 6 60 90 64 1 Rejected 7 69 84 75 2 Under Consideration 8 66 63 72 1 Rejected 9 73 87 80 2 Under Consideration 10 75 93 77 2 Under Consideration 11 69 76 87 3 Accepted 12 65 64 93 1 Rejected 13 71 71 85 2 Under Consideration 14 78 72 91 3 Accepted 15 71 73 95 2 Under Consideration 16 73 86 87 2 Under Consideration 17 84 63 90 3 Accepted 18 75 80 83 2 Under Consideration 19 90 61 72 2 Under Consideration 20 93 62 70 2 Under Consideration 21 92 75 68 2 Under Consideration 22 84 90 92 3 Accepted 23 95 73 76 3 Accepted 24 90 80 85 3 Accepted 25 94 70 89 3 Accepted 26 90 68 94 3 Accepted 27 87 84 87 3 Accepted 28 95 85 93 3 Accepted 29 92 85 93 3 Accepted 30 92 61 88 2 Under Consideration 3.2.1 Cluster validity metrics Internal validation indicated modest cluster separation. The mean silhouette coefficient was 0.16, suggesting partial overlap among competency profiles, which is plausible given the small pre-screened sample. The Davies–Bouldin Index was 2.05, indicating moderate distinctiveness among the three clusters. These values support interpreting the clusters as exploratory competency groupings rather than sharply separated classes. 3.3 Visualization of cluster structure To support interpretation, two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualizations were generated. Figure 2 presents a 2D scatter plot based on AutoCAD drafting skills and planning/supervision report-writing skills, showing visible separation between lower, intermediate, and higher competency profiles along key technical dimensions. Figure 2. K-means clustering visualization in a 2D scatter plot. Figure 3 extends the visualization into three dimensions by incorporating adaptability as a third axis. The 3D scatter plot reveals clearer spatial separation among clusters, particularly distinguishing candidates who combine strong technical skills with high adaptability from those with lower overall competency scores. Figure 3. K-means clustering visualization in a 3D scatter plot. For clarity of interpretation, the clustered dataset sorted by category is provided in Table 4 . Table 4. Sorted dataset by cluster categories. No AutoCAD_Drafting Planning_Supervision_ Report Adaptability Cluster Category 1 68 65 66 1 Rejected 2 69 74 73 1 Rejected 3 68 82 68 1 Rejected 4 63 75 71 1 Rejected 5 62 72 68 1 Rejected 6 60 90 64 1 Rejected 7 66 63 72 1 Rejected 8 65 64 93 1 Rejected 9 69 84 75 2 Under Consideration 10 73 87 80 2 Under Consideration 11 75 93 77 2 Under Consideration 12 71 71 85 2 Under Consideration 13 71 73 95 2 Under Consideration 14 73 86 87 2 Under Consideration 15 75 80 83 2 Under Consideration 16 90 61 72 2 Under Consideration 17 93 62 70 2 Under Consideration 18 92 75 68 2 Under Consideration 19 92 61 88 2 Under Consideration 20 69 76 87 3 Accepted 21 78 72 91 3 Accepted 22 84 63 90 3 Accepted 23 84 90 92 3 Accepted 24 95 73 76 3 Accepted 25 90 80 85 3 Accepted 26 94 70 89 3 Accepted 27 90 68 89 3 Accepted 28 87 94 87 3 Accepted 29 95 85 93 3 Accepted 30 92 85 93 3 Accepted To further examine structural consistency, hierarchical clustering projected onto principal component space is presented in Figure 4 . Although hierarchical clustering was not employed as the primary analytical method, the observed grouping patterns broadly align with the K-Means classification, providing additional support for the stability of the three-cluster structure within this dataset. Figure 4. Hierarchical clustering visualization using PCA-projected dimensions. 3.4 Interpretation and discussion The clustering results demonstrate that K-Means can be used as an exploratory tool to organize recruitment assessment data into interpretable competency profiles within a construction consulting context. Candidates grouped in the higher-scoring cluster tend to exhibit stronger performance across both technical and adaptive dimensions, consistent with prior research emphasizing the importance of combining technical competence with adaptability in project-based and construction-related work environments ( Gangl, 2003 ; Brown & Hesketh, 2005 ). The intermediate cluster represents candidates with mixed strengths, suggesting development potential rather than clear acceptance or rejection outcomes. This aligns with literature highlighting the role of structured training and targeted skill development in enhancing workforce readiness and career progression ( Rawat et al., 2024 ). Rather than constituting definitive recruitment decisions, this cluster highlights individuals who may benefit from managerial attention, follow-up assessment, or additional training. Importantly, the clustering approach does not replace professional judgment in recruitment. Instead, it provides a structured analytical perspective that can support transparency and consistency in early-stage evaluation. This aligns with contemporary views that HR analytics is most effective when it complements human expertise rather than automates decision-making processes ( Akkermans et al., 2024 ). From an ethical and governance perspective, the analysis is intended to structure early-stage assessment information rather than to automate acceptance decisions. Guidance on trustworthy AI and employment decision tools emphasizes the need for documentation, monitoring, and attention to bias risks when analytics are used in consequential settings ( NIST, 2023 ; EEOC, 2023 ). Accordingly, the cluster labels in this study are treated as descriptive competency profiles and should be used alongside human review, transparent documentation, and periodic evaluation of potential disparate impact. 3.5 Methodological considerations and limitations Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, the analysis was conducted on a pre-screened subset of candidates who passed document screening and participated in in-person testing; therefore, results may not generalize to the full applicant pool. Second, internal validity indices indicated modest separation, suggesting partially overlapping competency profiles that are plausible in a small filtered sample. Third, the clusters were not externally validated against final hiring decisions, expert HR evaluation, or subsequent job performance outcomes. Despite these limitations, the results illustrate how clustering can function as a practical decision-support tool in recruitment contexts involving multidimensional competency assessments. Future research could extend this approach by applying clustering to larger and more diverse applicant pools, incorporating additional competency indicators, comparing alternative clustering methods, and validating cluster profiles against post-hire performance indicators. 4. Conclusions This study explored the use of K-Means clustering as an exploratory analytical approach for organizing recruitment assessment data in a construction consulting context, based on three competencies: AutoCAD drafting skills, planning and supervision report-writing skills, and adaptability. Using data from a pre-screened group of applicants, the analysis identified three distinct competency profiles reflecting different patterns of technical and adaptive capabilities. The identified clusters indicate that applicants with stronger and more balanced combinations of technical competence and adaptability tend to form a distinct group, while candidates with mixed or lower competency profiles are grouped separately. These results should be interpreted as analytical groupings based on similarity patterns rather than as definitive hiring decisions or evidence of predictive effectiveness. This interpretation is consistent with conceptual discussions emphasizing the importance of adaptability and skill alignment in contemporary labor markets ( Gangl, 2003 ; Brown & Hesketh, 2005 ). Quantitative diagnostics suggested modest separation (mean silhouette = 0.16; DBI = 2.05), supporting cautious interpretation of the clusters as exploratory profiles in a small screened sample. The use of two-dimensional and three-dimensional visualizations enhanced interpretability by illustrating how multivariate competency combinations differentiate applicant profiles. The observed alignment between K-Means results and supporting hierarchical visualization further suggests structural consistency within the analyzed dataset, although external validation against hiring outcomes or job performance was beyond the scope of this study. From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that clustering-based analysis may support early-stage recruitment evaluation by helping organizations structure and interpret multidimensional assessment data in a transparent and systematic manner. More broadly, clustering as a decision-support mechanism can be situated within wider discussions on data-driven analysis as a means of structuring managerial judgment rather than replacing it ( Diván, 2017 ). When used alongside professional expertise, such approaches align with contemporary perspectives on human resource analytics that emphasize analytical support over automated decision-making ( Akkermans et al., 2024 ). In addition, the presence of an intermediate competency cluster highlights applicants who may benefit from further evaluation or targeted skill development initiatives, echoing research on structured training and career development ( Rawat et al., 2024 ; Donald et al., 2024 ). While career sustainability and job insecurity were not directly examined, the inclusion of adaptability as a clustering dimension resonates with broader discussions on adaptive capacity in uncertain career contexts ( Van der Heijden et al., 2024 ). Overall, this study provides a practical illustration of how unsupervised clustering techniques can be applied to recruitment assessment data in the construction sector. By emphasizing transparency, interpretability, and cautious use of analytics within governance and fairness considerations ( NIST, 2023 ; EEOC, 2023 ), the study contributes to ongoing discussions on data-driven decision-support tools for workforce selection and development. Ethical approval Ethical review and approval were not required for this study because the researchers analyzed fully anonymized secondary data that had been lawfully transferred by CV Ardantama Putra Perkasa under a formal Data Usage Agreement (No. 12/X/S-K/APP/2024). According to Indonesian national research ethics regulations (Permenkes RI No. 74/2016, Article 11) and the general principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, research involving secondary anonymized non-clinical data that cannot identify individuals is exempt from institutional ethical review. Therefore, this study qualifies for an ethics exemption. Informed consent Informed consent for data use was not obtained directly by the researchers, as all data were collected by CV Ardantama Putra Perkasa under standard recruitment procedures. The company confirmed, through the Data Usage Agreement (No. 12/X/S-K/APP/2024), that job applicants had authorized the use of their anonymized recruitment test results for evaluation and administrative purposes in accordance with Indonesian data protection regulations (UU ITE and PP 71/2019). Because the researchers received only anonymized secondary data and had no access to identifiable information, this study meets the criteria for consent exemption. Clinical trial registration Not applicable. Data availability statement Underlying data The anonymized job applicant dataset is not publicly available due to confidentiality agreements with CV Ardantama Putra Perkasa. Access may be granted for legitimate academic research upon reasonable request to the corresponding author ( [email protected] ), subject to approval by the data owner and compliance with Indonesian data protection regulations (UU ITE and PP 71/2019), including signing a Data Use Agreement and a commitment not to attempt re-identification. Extended data Extended data supporting this study, including R scripts, clustering iteration tables, visualizations, and documentation, are openly available in Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18501546 ( Jaya, 2026 ) under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Acknowledgement The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP) as the official sponsor of the scholarships that supported this publication. The authors also thank CV Ardantama Putra Perkasa for granting formal permission to use anonymized job applicant data for research and academic purposes. References Akkermans J, Donald WE, Jackson D, et al. : Are we talking about the same thing? The case for stronger connections between graduate and worker employability research. Career Dev. Int. 2024; 29 (1): 80–92. Publisher Full Text Agustina N, Prihandoko P: Perbandingan algoritma K-Means dengan Fuzzy C-Means untuk clustering tingkat kedisiplinan kinerja karyawan. Jurnal RESTI (Rekayasa Sistem dan Teknologi Informasi). 2018; 2 (3): 621–626. Publisher Full Text Brown P, Hesketh A: The mismanagement of talent: Employability and jobs in the knowledge economy. Ind. Labor Relat. Rev. 2005. Publisher Full Text Chen Yu: K-Means clustering. Indiana University; 2020. Darmi Y, Setiawan A: Penerapan metode clustering K-Means dalam pengelompokan penjualan produk. Jurnal Media Infotama. 2016; 12 (2): 148–157. Diván M: Data-driven decision making. 2017 IEEE International Conference on Technological Innovations in ICT for Agriculture and Rural Development (TIAR). IEEE; 2017; pp. 50–56. Publisher Full Text Donald WE, Van der Heijden BIJM, Manville G: (Re) Framing sustainable careers: Toward a conceptual model and future research agenda. Career Dev. Int. 2024; 29 (5): 513–526. Publisher Full Text EEOC: Select Issues: Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Technical Assistance; EEOC-NVTA-2023-2 , Issue Date: 2023-05-18 ). U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; 2003. https://data.aclum.org/storage/2025/01/EOCC_www_eeoc_gov_laws_guidance_select-issues-assessing-adverse-impact-software-algorithms-and-artificial.pdf El Achmar D, Bhagat R: The conceptual relation between human resource management (HRM) and competency mapping. International Journal of Teaching & Education. 2023. European Union Parliament and Council: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 … (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union, OJ L, 2024/1689, 12.7.2024. EUR-Lex. 2024. https://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj Fadhli M: Manajemen peningkatan mutu pendidikan. Tadbir: Jurnal Studi Manajemen Pendidikan. 2017; 1 (2): 215–240. Publisher Full Text Firza F, Sarjono S: Penerapan algoritma K-Means dalam metode clustering untuk peminatan jurusan bagi siswa Swasta Pelita Raya Kota Jambi. Jurnal Manajemen Sistem Informasi. 2020; 5 (3): 371–382. Gangl M: Labor market structure and re-employment rates: Unemployment dynamics in West Germany and the United States. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility. 2003; 20 : 185–224. Publisher Full Text Gie W, Jollyta D: Perbandingan Euclidean dan Manhattan untuk optimasi cluster menggunakan Davies-Bouldin Index: Status COVID-19 wilayah Riau. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Riset Information Science (SENARIS). 2020, July; 2 : 187–191. Green AE, Hoyos M, Li Y, et al. : Job search study: Literature review and analysis of the Labour Force Survey. London: Department for Work and Pensions; 2011. Hurbean L, Miliaru F, Muntean M, et al. : The impact of business intelligence and analytics adoption on decision-making effectiveness and managerial work performance. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business. 2023; 70 : 43–54. Publisher Full Text Irmawan I, Sagharmata FA, Ruthriana F: Analisis dampak pembangunan Kota Hutan (Forest City) (Studi kasus: Ibu Kota Nusantara (IKN), Kalimantan). Prosiding Seminar Rekayasa Teknologi (SemResTek). 2023; 299–304. Jain AK, Murty MN, Flynn PJ: Data clustering: A review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR). 1999; 31 (3): 264–323. Publisher Full Text Jaya DJ: Supplementary Materials R1 for “Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R”. [Data set]. Zenodo. 2026. Publisher Full Text Kassambara A: Practical guide to cluster analysis in R. STHDA; 1st ed. 2017. Reference Source London HH: Principles and techniques of vocational guidance. Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company; 1973. Manikandan S, Caroline AL, Kanniamma D: The study on clustering analysis in data mining. International Journal of Data Mining Techniques and Applications. 2018; 7 (1): 46–49. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). 2023. Publisher Full Text Pala SK: Use and applications of data analytics in human resource management and talent acquisition. International Journal of Enhanced Research in Science, Technology & Engineering. 2021; 10 : 2319–7463. Purba W, Tamba S, Saragih J: The effect of mining data K-Means clustering toward students profile model drop out potential. IOP Conference Series: Journal of Physics. 2018; 1007 (1): 012046–012049. Publisher Full Text Rawat A, Nadavulakere S, Isenhour L, et al. : Career enhancement strategies, supportive work relationships and subjective career success: The moderating role of family–work conflict. Career Dev. Int. 2024; 29 (4): 421–433. Publisher Full Text Smith SC, Todaro MP: Economic development. Boston: Pearson Education; 12th ed. 2015. Supriyanti SS, Kusmayanti JD, Paluseri ARA, et al. : Pemberdayaan masyarakat sekitar di wilayah Ibu Kota Nusantara. Masyarakat Indonesia. 2023; 49 (1): 93–102. Van der Heijden BIJM, Hofer A, Semeijn J: “Don’t you worry ’bout a thing” – The moderating role of age in the relationship between qualitative job insecurity and career sustainability. Career Dev. Int. 2024; 29 (5): 527–543. Publisher Full Text Widiyaningtyas T, Prabowo MIW, Pratama MAM: Implementation of K-Means clustering to distribution of high school teachers. Proceeding EECSI, Yogyakarta, 19–21 September. 2017, September; 49–54. Widodo SE: Manajemen pengembangan sumber daya manusia. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar; 2018. Wiharto W, Suryani E: The comparison of clustering algorithms K-Means and Fuzzy C-Means for segmentation retinal blood vessels. Acta Informatica Medica. 2020; 28 (1): 42–46. Publisher Full Text Zhang M, Zhou S, Wu Y, et al. : Pressure from social media: Influence of social media usage on career exploration. Career Dev. Int. 2024; 29 (1): 93–112. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Technology and Vocational Education and Training, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 2 Building Engineering Education, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, East Jakarta, Special Capital Region of Jakarta, Indonesia 3 Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 4 English Language Education, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, Special Region of Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia Daniel Jesayanto Jaya Roles: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani Roles: Formal Analysis, Funding Acquisition, Methodology, Resources, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Endang Wati Roles: Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Software, Validation, Writing – Review & Editing Yogi Novario Nandes Roles: Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing Ilma Zahriyatun Nadhiroh Roles: Funding Acquisition, Resources, Writing – Review & Editing Reza Bakhrun Fidianto Pade Roles: Funding Acquisition, Software, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information This research was funded by scholarships awarded by the Indonesian Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP), with Grant Numbers 202312211239164 (Daniel Jesayanto Jaya), 202407112005435 (Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani), 202406111202933 (Endang Wati), 202406111204346 (Yogi Novario Nandes), 202407111205431 (Ilma Zahriyatun Nadhiroh), and 202404111201727 (Reza Bakhrun Fidianto Pade). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 12 Mar 2026, 14:1388 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172383.2 version 1 Published: 10 Dec 2025, 14:1388 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172383.1 Copyright © 2026 Jaya DJ et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Jaya DJ, Ramdhani WM, Wati E et al. Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.172383.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 12 Mar 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Pişirgen A. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r468949 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2#referee-response-468949 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 20 Apr 2026 Ali Pişirgen , Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r468949 Choosing the number of clusters There is an inherent tension: K=3 is motivated by desired recruitment categories, but K should be justified from the data structure as well, otherwise the analysis becomes forced classification by clustering. The manuscript ... Continue reading READ ALL Choosing the number of clusters There is an inherent tension: K=3 is motivated by desired recruitment categories, but K should be justified from the data structure as well, otherwise the analysis becomes forced classification by clustering. The manuscript should present cluster-number justification more rigorously (e.g., elbow method plus at least one additional diagnostic such as silhouette/gap or stability), and explain that “three clusters” may be a managerial convenience rather than a natural structure. Terminology discipline: Use one consistent naming scheme for variables (e.g., “AutoCAD drafting” vs “AutoCAD drawing”; “planning/supervision report writing”). Inconsistencies make reproducibility and interpretation harder, especially if extended data uses different names. Particularly Table 1 and Table 4. Ensure that variable names match Reproducibility Because this is an applied observational dataset analysis (not a clinical trial, systematic review, or animal study), CONSORT/PRISMA/ARRIVE are not directly applicable; however, STROBE-style completeness standards are useful for reporting observational data and analysis decisions. 1 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, et al.: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS Medicine . 2007; 4 (10). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: My research focuses on data analytics and decision support systems within the field of information systems, with particular emphasis on machine learning, clustering techniques, and data-driven modeling of socio-economic systems such as scientometrics, tourism, marketing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Pişirgen A. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r468949 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2#referee-response-468949 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kembuan O and Sangkop F. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r467509 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2#referee-response-467509 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 23 Mar 2026 Olivia Kembuan , Universitas Negeri Manado, Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia Ferdinan Sangkop , informatics, Universitas Negeri Manado (Ringgold ID: 175496), Tondano, North Sulawes, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r467509 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? The manuscript is generally clearly structured and readable. However, the literature review focuses primarily on clustering algorithms and includes a number of regional or context-specific ... Continue reading READ ALL Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? The manuscript is generally clearly structured and readable. However, the literature review focuses primarily on clustering algorithms and includes a number of regional or context-specific references. The manuscript would benefit from stronger engagement with more recent international literature on HR analytics, algorithmic decision-making in recruitment, and AI-assisted hiring systems. Incorporating broader global scholarship would strengthen the theoretical grounding of the study. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Provide a clearer justification for analyzing only the 30 shortlisted candidates and discuss the implications of this sampling decision. Although some methodological details are provided, additional clarification of analytical parameters and preprocessing decisions would improve reproducibility. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? The conclusions generally align with the exploratory nature of the study; however, some claims regarding the usefulness of clustering for improving recruitment decision-making are somewhat stronger than the evidence supports. Because the analysis is based on a small, pre-screened sample and lacks external validation against actual hiring outcomes or job performance, the conclusions should emphasize the illustrative and exploratory nature of the findings rather than suggesting demonstrated improvements in recruitment effectiveness. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Data Science We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kembuan O and Sangkop F. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r467509 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2#referee-response-467509 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 10 Dec 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Gupta D. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446627 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v1#referee-response-446627 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 03 Feb 2026 Deepak Gupta , Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446627 The manuscript addresses a relevant and practically important topic of using K‑Means clustering to support recruitment decisions in a construction consulting firm. The use of real organizational data, clear cluster descriptions, and intuitive 2D/3D visualizations makes the work accessible ... Continue reading READ ALL The manuscript addresses a relevant and practically important topic of using K‑Means clustering to support recruitment decisions in a construction consulting firm. The use of real organizational data, clear cluster descriptions, and intuitive 2D/3D visualizations makes the work accessible and potentially useful for practitioners interested in HR analytics and R-based implementations. However, the current version has substantial methodological and presentation limitations that need to be addressed before the article can be considered for indexing. The study starts from 161 applicants but analyzes only 30 shortlisted candidates who “met the minimum requirements,” with no clear justification of the selection criteria or their implications. This design means the clustering is applied to a highly pre-filtered subset rather than the full applicant pool, which severely limits generalizability to “recruitment strategies” or “workforce selection” more broadly. The authors should explicitly describe the screening rules used to select the 30 candidates (cut‑offs, qualitative judgments, etc.). The authors should re-run the analysis on the full set of 161 applicants (if possible and ethically permissible) or reframe the paper as a methodological demonstration on a small, filtered sample and tone down claims about recruitment optimization. Initial centroids are chosen manually as “Rejected = (60,75,85); Considered = (62,77,88); Accepted = (70,84,92)” with no methodological justification beyond being “chosen randomly,” which they are not. These values embed prior expectations about the three groups and risk steering the solution toward a desired structure, rather than letting the algorithm discover patterns in the data. The authors should justify the chosen centroids and make that explicit. In addition, run at least one standard initialization strategy (e.g., built‑in k-means in R with multiple random starts, or k-means++). The authors should also report whether the manually initialized solution is stable across different initializations; and if not, the conclusions about three clusters and their interpretation need to be more cautious. The methods mention Euclidean distance and cite general clustering references, but there is no clear statement on whether the three variables were standardized or used in raw form. There is also no discussion of data cleaning beyond a vague reference to removing “irrelevant or incomplete data.” How many records, if any, were excluded and why? Whether any outliers were identified and how they were handled. The authors should explicitly state whether they standardized the variables before clustering; if not, justify why not and show at least descriptive ranges/variances. They should also provide a proper description of data-cleaning procedure. If outliers exist (some points in the 3D plot appear distant from cluster centers), please clarify whether they influence centroid placement and consider sensitivity analyses. The discussion and conclusions repeatedly assert that K‑Means is “effective” and “improves recruitment decision-making,” yet there is no external validation. There is no comparison with actual hiring decisions made by the firm. No HR-expert assessment of whether clusters align with real performance or selection outcomes. If such data are not available, please qualify all claims about decision-making benefits as exploratory. The author states in the “Underlying data” section that the dataset is not publicly available due to confidentiality and must be requested via the corresponding author. At the same time, the text refers to R scripts and supplementary materials in a Zenodo repository as extended data. The authors should clarify precisely what is in the Zenodo archive (R code, example data, figures, documentation) and referencing it consistently in the methods and data availability sections. If contractual and legal constraints allow, please consider publishing an anonymized dataset (at least the 30 shortlisted candidates; ideally all 161) with no identifying information. If this is impossible, explicitly justify the restriction and explain how others can still verify the methodology (e.g., via synthetic data included in the Zenodo package). The conclusions and parts of the discussion are phrased quite strongly (e.g., “confirm that the K‑Means Clustering algorithm is an effective tool” and “this approach not only addresses challenges in evaluating applicants but also builds a foundation for sustainable talent management”), which is not fully justified given the small, preselected sample and lack of external validation. Minor comments: The authors are suggested to modify the text in the abstract, discussion, and conclusions to reflect that findings are preliminary and illustrative for one firm and one small dataset. The literature review is generally coherent but heavily focused on clustering and Indonesian/sector-specific references. There is relatively little engagement with the broader international work on AI in recruitment, algorithmic decision-making, or HR analytics. Tables 2-7 list centroid updates and distances in excessive detail. It is pedagogically useful but makes the manuscript long and difficult to navigate. Some of the tables can be moved to the supplementary information with their summary in the main text. There are some grammatical errors, please perform a proofread of the manuscript carefully. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Healthcare, 3D Printing, Artificial Intelligence I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Gupta D. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446627 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v1#referee-response-446627 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 09 Feb 2026 Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani , Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 09 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer 2 Deepak Gupta (Penn State University, USA) We thank the reviewer for the detailed and technically informed evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has been instrumental in ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer 2 Deepak Gupta (Penn State University, USA) We thank the reviewer for the detailed and technically informed evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has been instrumental in improving methodological rigor, transparency, and interpretive clarity. Our responses are provided below. Comment 1: Pre-filtered sample and limited generalizability Response: We fully agree. The manuscript has been explicitly reframed to clarify that the clustering analysis was applied to a pre-screened subset of applicants who passed document screening. This design choice is now clearly justified in the Methods section, and all claims have been moderated accordingly. The study is presented as an exploratory analytical illustration rather than a full recruitment optimization model. Comment 2: Manual centroid bias and need for robustness checks Response: This concern has been directly addressed. In addition to clarifying the rationale for initial centroid selection, we now report results from multiple random initializations (nstart = 50) using R’s kmeans() function. The three-cluster structure remained largely stable across runs, with only minor variation among borderline profiles. These findings are now reported and discussed in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: Data normalization, outliers, and cleaning Response: The Methods section now explicitly states that all variables were measured on the same 0–100 scale, and therefore raw scores were used without normalization. We also added an outlier and sensitivity analysis , including a leave-one-out test removing the most distant observation. This test did not materially change the cluster structure, and validation metrics showed only marginal changes. These results are now reported to support robustness. Comment 4: Lack of validation against real hiring outcomes Response: We explicitly acknowledge this limitation. The revised manuscript clearly states that no comparison with actual hiring decisions or post-employment performance was possible. All statements regarding recruitment support are now framed as illustrative and exploratory , not empirically validated improvements. Comment 5: Data availability and Zenodo clarification Response: This issue has been resolved by clearly distinguishing: Confidential underlying data (not publicly shareable); Publicly available extended data hosted on Zenodo, including R scripts, figures, clustering outputs, and documentation. The Data availability section has been rewritten for clarity and compliance with journal policy. Comment 6: Excessive tables and manuscript length Response: In line with the suggestion, detailed centroid iteration tables have been moved to extended data . The main text now focuses on final clustering outcomes, visual interpretation, and discussion, substantially improving readability. Comment 7: Language and proofreading Response: The manuscript has been carefully proofread and revised to improve clarity, reduce repetition, and ensure consistent terminology throughout. Final note: We thank the reviewer for the rigorous and constructive critique. The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s technical soundness, transparency, and responsible positioning within data-driven recruitment research. Response to Reviewer 2 Deepak Gupta (Penn State University, USA) We thank the reviewer for the detailed and technically informed evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has been instrumental in improving methodological rigor, transparency, and interpretive clarity. Our responses are provided below. Comment 1: Pre-filtered sample and limited generalizability Response: We fully agree. The manuscript has been explicitly reframed to clarify that the clustering analysis was applied to a pre-screened subset of applicants who passed document screening. This design choice is now clearly justified in the Methods section, and all claims have been moderated accordingly. The study is presented as an exploratory analytical illustration rather than a full recruitment optimization model. Comment 2: Manual centroid bias and need for robustness checks Response: This concern has been directly addressed. In addition to clarifying the rationale for initial centroid selection, we now report results from multiple random initializations (nstart = 50) using R’s kmeans() function. The three-cluster structure remained largely stable across runs, with only minor variation among borderline profiles. These findings are now reported and discussed in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: Data normalization, outliers, and cleaning Response: The Methods section now explicitly states that all variables were measured on the same 0–100 scale, and therefore raw scores were used without normalization. We also added an outlier and sensitivity analysis , including a leave-one-out test removing the most distant observation. This test did not materially change the cluster structure, and validation metrics showed only marginal changes. These results are now reported to support robustness. Comment 4: Lack of validation against real hiring outcomes Response: We explicitly acknowledge this limitation. The revised manuscript clearly states that no comparison with actual hiring decisions or post-employment performance was possible. All statements regarding recruitment support are now framed as illustrative and exploratory , not empirically validated improvements. Comment 5: Data availability and Zenodo clarification Response: This issue has been resolved by clearly distinguishing: Confidential underlying data (not publicly shareable); Publicly available extended data hosted on Zenodo, including R scripts, figures, clustering outputs, and documentation. The Data availability section has been rewritten for clarity and compliance with journal policy. Comment 6: Excessive tables and manuscript length Response: In line with the suggestion, detailed centroid iteration tables have been moved to extended data . The main text now focuses on final clustering outcomes, visual interpretation, and discussion, substantially improving readability. Comment 7: Language and proofreading Response: The manuscript has been carefully proofread and revised to improve clarity, reduce repetition, and ensure consistent terminology throughout. Final note: We thank the reviewer for the rigorous and constructive critique. The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s technical soundness, transparency, and responsible positioning within data-driven recruitment research. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 09 Feb 2026 Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani , Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 09 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer 2 Deepak Gupta (Penn State University, USA) We thank the reviewer for the detailed and technically informed evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has been instrumental in ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer 2 Deepak Gupta (Penn State University, USA) We thank the reviewer for the detailed and technically informed evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has been instrumental in improving methodological rigor, transparency, and interpretive clarity. Our responses are provided below. Comment 1: Pre-filtered sample and limited generalizability Response: We fully agree. The manuscript has been explicitly reframed to clarify that the clustering analysis was applied to a pre-screened subset of applicants who passed document screening. This design choice is now clearly justified in the Methods section, and all claims have been moderated accordingly. The study is presented as an exploratory analytical illustration rather than a full recruitment optimization model. Comment 2: Manual centroid bias and need for robustness checks Response: This concern has been directly addressed. In addition to clarifying the rationale for initial centroid selection, we now report results from multiple random initializations (nstart = 50) using R’s kmeans() function. The three-cluster structure remained largely stable across runs, with only minor variation among borderline profiles. These findings are now reported and discussed in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: Data normalization, outliers, and cleaning Response: The Methods section now explicitly states that all variables were measured on the same 0–100 scale, and therefore raw scores were used without normalization. We also added an outlier and sensitivity analysis , including a leave-one-out test removing the most distant observation. This test did not materially change the cluster structure, and validation metrics showed only marginal changes. These results are now reported to support robustness. Comment 4: Lack of validation against real hiring outcomes Response: We explicitly acknowledge this limitation. The revised manuscript clearly states that no comparison with actual hiring decisions or post-employment performance was possible. All statements regarding recruitment support are now framed as illustrative and exploratory , not empirically validated improvements. Comment 5: Data availability and Zenodo clarification Response: This issue has been resolved by clearly distinguishing: Confidential underlying data (not publicly shareable); Publicly available extended data hosted on Zenodo, including R scripts, figures, clustering outputs, and documentation. The Data availability section has been rewritten for clarity and compliance with journal policy. Comment 6: Excessive tables and manuscript length Response: In line with the suggestion, detailed centroid iteration tables have been moved to extended data . The main text now focuses on final clustering outcomes, visual interpretation, and discussion, substantially improving readability. Comment 7: Language and proofreading Response: The manuscript has been carefully proofread and revised to improve clarity, reduce repetition, and ensure consistent terminology throughout. Final note: We thank the reviewer for the rigorous and constructive critique. The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s technical soundness, transparency, and responsible positioning within data-driven recruitment research. Response to Reviewer 2 Deepak Gupta (Penn State University, USA) We thank the reviewer for the detailed and technically informed evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has been instrumental in improving methodological rigor, transparency, and interpretive clarity. Our responses are provided below. Comment 1: Pre-filtered sample and limited generalizability Response: We fully agree. The manuscript has been explicitly reframed to clarify that the clustering analysis was applied to a pre-screened subset of applicants who passed document screening. This design choice is now clearly justified in the Methods section, and all claims have been moderated accordingly. The study is presented as an exploratory analytical illustration rather than a full recruitment optimization model. Comment 2: Manual centroid bias and need for robustness checks Response: This concern has been directly addressed. In addition to clarifying the rationale for initial centroid selection, we now report results from multiple random initializations (nstart = 50) using R’s kmeans() function. The three-cluster structure remained largely stable across runs, with only minor variation among borderline profiles. These findings are now reported and discussed in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: Data normalization, outliers, and cleaning Response: The Methods section now explicitly states that all variables were measured on the same 0–100 scale, and therefore raw scores were used without normalization. We also added an outlier and sensitivity analysis , including a leave-one-out test removing the most distant observation. This test did not materially change the cluster structure, and validation metrics showed only marginal changes. These results are now reported to support robustness. Comment 4: Lack of validation against real hiring outcomes Response: We explicitly acknowledge this limitation. The revised manuscript clearly states that no comparison with actual hiring decisions or post-employment performance was possible. All statements regarding recruitment support are now framed as illustrative and exploratory , not empirically validated improvements. Comment 5: Data availability and Zenodo clarification Response: This issue has been resolved by clearly distinguishing: Confidential underlying data (not publicly shareable); Publicly available extended data hosted on Zenodo, including R scripts, figures, clustering outputs, and documentation. The Data availability section has been rewritten for clarity and compliance with journal policy. Comment 6: Excessive tables and manuscript length Response: In line with the suggestion, detailed centroid iteration tables have been moved to extended data . The main text now focuses on final clustering outcomes, visual interpretation, and discussion, substantially improving readability. Comment 7: Language and proofreading Response: The manuscript has been carefully proofread and revised to improve clarity, reduce repetition, and ensure consistent terminology throughout. Final note: We thank the reviewer for the rigorous and constructive critique. The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s technical soundness, transparency, and responsible positioning within data-driven recruitment research. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Shaikh SN. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446632 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v1#referee-response-446632 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 08 Jan 2026 Sonia Najam Shaikh , Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446632 The paper presents an interesting and practically valuable idea by using K-Means clustering to support recruitment decision-making in a construction firm. The study groups applicants into rejected, under consideration, and accepted categories based on AutoCAD skills, planning/supervision ... Continue reading READ ALL The paper presents an interesting and practically valuable idea by using K-Means clustering to support recruitment decision-making in a construction firm. The study groups applicants into rejected, under consideration, and accepted categories based on AutoCAD skills, planning/supervision report ability, and adaptability, and it makes good use of R and visualization techniques to demonstrate the results. The topic is timely and relevant to HR analytics and industry needs, and overall the manuscript is readable, logically structured, and supported by real organizational data, which gives it strong applied significance. However, while the work is clearly presented, it is only partly sufficient in terms of scientific rigor and presentation quality. The manuscript sometimes becomes repetitive and uses very long tables that make it difficult to follow the narrative smoothly. The literature review is decent, but it leans heavily on regional or context-specific studies, and it would benefit greatly from integrating more current international literature on AI-driven recruitment, algorithmic hiring, fairness, and HR analytics trends. Adding such perspectives would make the study more globally relevant and intellectually grounded. In terms of study design, the concept is appropriate, but there are some important weaknesses that affect technical soundness. The biggest issue is that the study only analyzed 30 shortlisted candidates out of 161 applicants, without providing a clear justification. This introduces bias and limits how generalizable the findings are. Another concern is the selection of initial centroids, which appears subjective rather than determined using a standard procedure such as random initialization or k-means++. There is also no explanation of whether data normalization was applied, which is important since K-Means relies on Euclidean distance and differences in scale can significantly affect results. These issues really need to be addressed for the paper to be scientifically strong. The paper partly allows replication because the clustering process is explained carefully and tables clearly trace centroid iterations and cluster formation. However, critical methodological details are missing. There is no detailed explanation of data cleaning, whether any applicants were excluded and why, how outliers were treated, whether ethical permission or company approval was obtained, and what settings were used in R. To make the study convincingly reproducible, the authors should provide anonymized raw data, the R script, and a clearer explanation of all methodological choices. The analysis and interpretation are also only partly sufficient. Although clustering has been correctly applied and visualizations are very good, the study does not present objective validation of the clusters. There is no numerical reporting of validation metrics such as silhouette score, Davies–Bouldin index, or any form of comparison with real hiring outcomes or expert HR evaluation. Without such validation, the findings are mostly descriptive, and the claim that clustering improves recruitment decision-making is not empirically proven. Adding cluster validity results and some form of comparison or evaluation would significantly strengthen the credibility of the conclusions. Data availability is partly fulfilled. While applicant scores are shown in tables, there is no formal dataset sharing, no supplementary files, and no data availability statement. Reproducibility is an important expectation, so providing anonymized data and the analysis code will help readers trust and build upon the work. The conclusions are relevant and aligned with the results, but they are currently expressed too strongly considering the methodological limitations and lack of validation. The study needs to acknowledge its limitations, including the small selective sample, potential bias, lack of external validation, and ethical concerns such as fairness and transparency in automated hiring. The tone of the conclusions should be slightly moderated to reflect that the findings are promising but not definitively proven. Overall, this is a promising and meaningful study with clear practical relevance, strong visualization, and a good foundation. However, to make it scientifically sound and suitable for indexing, the authors must justify or expand the sample, apply standard centroid initialization or explain theirs clearly, normalize or justify scale handling, provide quantitative cluster validation, share data and code, strengthen literature support, and include a more explicit discussion of limitations and ethical considerations. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Human Resource Management, Artificial intelligence, Big data analytics capability I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Shaikh SN. Reviewer Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446632 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v1#referee-response-446632 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 09 Feb 2026 Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani , Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 09 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh (Jiangsu University, China) We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. We ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh (Jiangsu University, China) We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript substantially to address all major concerns raised. Our point-by-point responses are provided below. Comment 1: Limited international literature and lack of broader AI/HR analytics perspective Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have expanded the literature review and discussion to better situate the study within international debates on data-driven recruitment, employability, and HR analytics. Specifically, we incorporated recent global literature addressing analytical decision support, adaptability, and career sustainability (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2024; Donald et al., 2024; Rawat et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024; Van der Heijden et al., 2024). In addition, we explicitly positioned clustering as an exploratory decision-support tool , aligned with international guidance on responsible and transparent use of analytics in employment contexts. Comment 2: Analysis limited to 30 candidates out of 161 applicants Response: We fully agree that this required clearer justification. The revised manuscript now explicitly explains that the clustering analysis was conducted on 30 candidates who passed formal document screening conducted by the company as part of standard recruitment procedures. We clearly state that the study analyzes a pre-screened assessment sample , not the full applicant pool. Accordingly, the study has been reframed as an exploratory methodological illustration rather than a comprehensive recruitment optimization model. Limitations related to selection bias and generalizability are now explicitly acknowledged in the Methods, Results, and Conclusions sections. Comment 3: Subjective centroid selection and lack of standard initialization Response: Thank you for highlighting this critical methodological issue. We have clarified that the manually specified initial centroids were derived from preliminary inspection of score distributions and used for transparency and pedagogical traceability. To address concerns regarding subjectivity and robustness, we have now: Added a dedicated subsection describing multiple random initializations using the built-in kmeans() function in R (nstart = 50); Reported stability checks , showing that the three-cluster structure was largely consistent across runs, with only minor variations among borderline cases; Moderated all interpretations to emphasize that clusters reflect similarity patterns , not predefined hiring categories. Comment 4: Missing details on data cleaning, ethics, and reproducibility Response: This concern has been fully addressed. The revised manuscript now includes: A clearer description of document screening and data preprocessing; Explicit confirmation that all analyzed records were complete and measured on the same 0–100 scale; A detailed Ethical approval and informed consent section clarifying the use of fully anonymized secondary data under a formal Data Usage Agreement; An updated Data availability statement ; An updated Zenodo repository containing R scripts, clustering outputs, and documentation to support reproducibility. Comment 5: Lack of objective cluster validation Response: We agree with this observation. To strengthen technical rigor, we have added a dedicated cluster validity assessment section reporting internal validation metrics. Specifically, we report: Mean silhouette coefficient (0.16); Davies–Bouldin Index (DBI = 2.05). We explicitly interpret these values as diagnostic indicators of modest separation, appropriate for exploratory analysis, and avoid presenting them as evidence of predictive effectiveness. Comment 6: Overly strong conclusions Response: The Conclusions section has been revised to adopt a more cautious and balanced tone. Claims regarding effectiveness and decision-making improvement are now framed as exploratory and context-specific . Limitations related to sample size, pre-screening, lack of external validation, and ethical considerations are explicitly acknowledged. Final note: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments, which have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s methodological transparency, analytical caution, and international relevance. Response to Reviewer 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh (Jiangsu University, China) We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript substantially to address all major concerns raised. Our point-by-point responses are provided below. Comment 1: Limited international literature and lack of broader AI/HR analytics perspective Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have expanded the literature review and discussion to better situate the study within international debates on data-driven recruitment, employability, and HR analytics. Specifically, we incorporated recent global literature addressing analytical decision support, adaptability, and career sustainability (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2024; Donald et al., 2024; Rawat et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024; Van der Heijden et al., 2024). In addition, we explicitly positioned clustering as an exploratory decision-support tool , aligned with international guidance on responsible and transparent use of analytics in employment contexts. Comment 2: Analysis limited to 30 candidates out of 161 applicants Response: We fully agree that this required clearer justification. The revised manuscript now explicitly explains that the clustering analysis was conducted on 30 candidates who passed formal document screening conducted by the company as part of standard recruitment procedures. We clearly state that the study analyzes a pre-screened assessment sample , not the full applicant pool. Accordingly, the study has been reframed as an exploratory methodological illustration rather than a comprehensive recruitment optimization model. Limitations related to selection bias and generalizability are now explicitly acknowledged in the Methods, Results, and Conclusions sections. Comment 3: Subjective centroid selection and lack of standard initialization Response: Thank you for highlighting this critical methodological issue. We have clarified that the manually specified initial centroids were derived from preliminary inspection of score distributions and used for transparency and pedagogical traceability. To address concerns regarding subjectivity and robustness, we have now: Added a dedicated subsection describing multiple random initializations using the built-in kmeans() function in R (nstart = 50); Reported stability checks , showing that the three-cluster structure was largely consistent across runs, with only minor variations among borderline cases; Moderated all interpretations to emphasize that clusters reflect similarity patterns , not predefined hiring categories. Comment 4: Missing details on data cleaning, ethics, and reproducibility Response: This concern has been fully addressed. The revised manuscript now includes: A clearer description of document screening and data preprocessing; Explicit confirmation that all analyzed records were complete and measured on the same 0–100 scale; A detailed Ethical approval and informed consent section clarifying the use of fully anonymized secondary data under a formal Data Usage Agreement; An updated Data availability statement ; An updated Zenodo repository containing R scripts, clustering outputs, and documentation to support reproducibility. Comment 5: Lack of objective cluster validation Response: We agree with this observation. To strengthen technical rigor, we have added a dedicated cluster validity assessment section reporting internal validation metrics. Specifically, we report: Mean silhouette coefficient (0.16); Davies–Bouldin Index (DBI = 2.05). We explicitly interpret these values as diagnostic indicators of modest separation, appropriate for exploratory analysis, and avoid presenting them as evidence of predictive effectiveness. Comment 6: Overly strong conclusions Response: The Conclusions section has been revised to adopt a more cautious and balanced tone. Claims regarding effectiveness and decision-making improvement are now framed as exploratory and context-specific . Limitations related to sample size, pre-screening, lack of external validation, and ethical considerations are explicitly acknowledged. Final note: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments, which have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s methodological transparency, analytical caution, and international relevance. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 09 Feb 2026 Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani , Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia 09 Feb 2026 Author Response Response to Reviewer 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh (Jiangsu University, China) We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. We ... Continue reading Response to Reviewer 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh (Jiangsu University, China) We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript substantially to address all major concerns raised. Our point-by-point responses are provided below. Comment 1: Limited international literature and lack of broader AI/HR analytics perspective Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have expanded the literature review and discussion to better situate the study within international debates on data-driven recruitment, employability, and HR analytics. Specifically, we incorporated recent global literature addressing analytical decision support, adaptability, and career sustainability (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2024; Donald et al., 2024; Rawat et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024; Van der Heijden et al., 2024). In addition, we explicitly positioned clustering as an exploratory decision-support tool , aligned with international guidance on responsible and transparent use of analytics in employment contexts. Comment 2: Analysis limited to 30 candidates out of 161 applicants Response: We fully agree that this required clearer justification. The revised manuscript now explicitly explains that the clustering analysis was conducted on 30 candidates who passed formal document screening conducted by the company as part of standard recruitment procedures. We clearly state that the study analyzes a pre-screened assessment sample , not the full applicant pool. Accordingly, the study has been reframed as an exploratory methodological illustration rather than a comprehensive recruitment optimization model. Limitations related to selection bias and generalizability are now explicitly acknowledged in the Methods, Results, and Conclusions sections. Comment 3: Subjective centroid selection and lack of standard initialization Response: Thank you for highlighting this critical methodological issue. We have clarified that the manually specified initial centroids were derived from preliminary inspection of score distributions and used for transparency and pedagogical traceability. To address concerns regarding subjectivity and robustness, we have now: Added a dedicated subsection describing multiple random initializations using the built-in kmeans() function in R (nstart = 50); Reported stability checks , showing that the three-cluster structure was largely consistent across runs, with only minor variations among borderline cases; Moderated all interpretations to emphasize that clusters reflect similarity patterns , not predefined hiring categories. Comment 4: Missing details on data cleaning, ethics, and reproducibility Response: This concern has been fully addressed. The revised manuscript now includes: A clearer description of document screening and data preprocessing; Explicit confirmation that all analyzed records were complete and measured on the same 0–100 scale; A detailed Ethical approval and informed consent section clarifying the use of fully anonymized secondary data under a formal Data Usage Agreement; An updated Data availability statement ; An updated Zenodo repository containing R scripts, clustering outputs, and documentation to support reproducibility. Comment 5: Lack of objective cluster validation Response: We agree with this observation. To strengthen technical rigor, we have added a dedicated cluster validity assessment section reporting internal validation metrics. Specifically, we report: Mean silhouette coefficient (0.16); Davies–Bouldin Index (DBI = 2.05). We explicitly interpret these values as diagnostic indicators of modest separation, appropriate for exploratory analysis, and avoid presenting them as evidence of predictive effectiveness. Comment 6: Overly strong conclusions Response: The Conclusions section has been revised to adopt a more cautious and balanced tone. Claims regarding effectiveness and decision-making improvement are now framed as exploratory and context-specific . Limitations related to sample size, pre-screening, lack of external validation, and ethical considerations are explicitly acknowledged. Final note: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments, which have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s methodological transparency, analytical caution, and international relevance. Response to Reviewer 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh (Jiangsu University, China) We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript substantially to address all major concerns raised. Our point-by-point responses are provided below. Comment 1: Limited international literature and lack of broader AI/HR analytics perspective Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have expanded the literature review and discussion to better situate the study within international debates on data-driven recruitment, employability, and HR analytics. Specifically, we incorporated recent global literature addressing analytical decision support, adaptability, and career sustainability (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2024; Donald et al., 2024; Rawat et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024; Van der Heijden et al., 2024). In addition, we explicitly positioned clustering as an exploratory decision-support tool , aligned with international guidance on responsible and transparent use of analytics in employment contexts. Comment 2: Analysis limited to 30 candidates out of 161 applicants Response: We fully agree that this required clearer justification. The revised manuscript now explicitly explains that the clustering analysis was conducted on 30 candidates who passed formal document screening conducted by the company as part of standard recruitment procedures. We clearly state that the study analyzes a pre-screened assessment sample , not the full applicant pool. Accordingly, the study has been reframed as an exploratory methodological illustration rather than a comprehensive recruitment optimization model. Limitations related to selection bias and generalizability are now explicitly acknowledged in the Methods, Results, and Conclusions sections. Comment 3: Subjective centroid selection and lack of standard initialization Response: Thank you for highlighting this critical methodological issue. We have clarified that the manually specified initial centroids were derived from preliminary inspection of score distributions and used for transparency and pedagogical traceability. To address concerns regarding subjectivity and robustness, we have now: Added a dedicated subsection describing multiple random initializations using the built-in kmeans() function in R (nstart = 50); Reported stability checks , showing that the three-cluster structure was largely consistent across runs, with only minor variations among borderline cases; Moderated all interpretations to emphasize that clusters reflect similarity patterns , not predefined hiring categories. Comment 4: Missing details on data cleaning, ethics, and reproducibility Response: This concern has been fully addressed. The revised manuscript now includes: A clearer description of document screening and data preprocessing; Explicit confirmation that all analyzed records were complete and measured on the same 0–100 scale; A detailed Ethical approval and informed consent section clarifying the use of fully anonymized secondary data under a formal Data Usage Agreement; An updated Data availability statement ; An updated Zenodo repository containing R scripts, clustering outputs, and documentation to support reproducibility. Comment 5: Lack of objective cluster validation Response: We agree with this observation. To strengthen technical rigor, we have added a dedicated cluster validity assessment section reporting internal validation metrics. Specifically, we report: Mean silhouette coefficient (0.16); Davies–Bouldin Index (DBI = 2.05). We explicitly interpret these values as diagnostic indicators of modest separation, appropriate for exploratory analysis, and avoid presenting them as evidence of predictive effectiveness. Comment 6: Overly strong conclusions Response: The Conclusions section has been revised to adopt a more cautious and balanced tone. Claims regarding effectiveness and decision-making improvement are now framed as exploratory and context-specific . Limitations related to sample size, pre-screening, lack of external validation, and ethical considerations are explicitly acknowledged. Final note: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments, which have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s methodological transparency, analytical caution, and international relevance. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 10 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 4 Version 2 (revision) 12 Mar 26 read read Version 1 10 Dec 25 read read Sonia Najam Shaikh , Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China Deepak Gupta , Penn State University, University Park, USA Olivia Kembuan , Universitas Negeri Manado, Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia Ferdinan Sangkop , Universitas Negeri Manado (Ringgold ID: 175496), Tondano, Indonesia Ali Pişirgen , Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Pişirgen A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 20 Apr 2026 | for Version 2 Ali Pişirgen , Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, Karaman, Turkey 0 Views copyright © 2026 Pişirgen A. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Choosing the number of clusters There is an inherent tension: K=3 is motivated by desired recruitment categories, but K should be justified from the data structure as well, otherwise the analysis becomes forced classification by clustering. The manuscript should present cluster-number justification more rigorously (e.g., elbow method plus at least one additional diagnostic such as silhouette/gap or stability), and explain that “three clusters” may be a managerial convenience rather than a natural structure. Terminology discipline: Use one consistent naming scheme for variables (e.g., “AutoCAD drafting” vs “AutoCAD drawing”; “planning/supervision report writing”). Inconsistencies make reproducibility and interpretation harder, especially if extended data uses different names. Particularly Table 1 and Table 4. Ensure that variable names match Reproducibility Because this is an applied observational dataset analysis (not a clinical trial, systematic review, or animal study), CONSORT/PRISMA/ARRIVE are not directly applicable; however, STROBE-style completeness standards are useful for reporting observational data and analysis decisions. 1 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes References 1. von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, et al.: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS Medicine . 2007; 4 (10). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise My research focuses on data analytics and decision support systems within the field of information systems, with particular emphasis on machine learning, clustering techniques, and data-driven modeling of socio-economic systems such as scientometrics, tourism, marketing. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Pişirgen A. Peer Review Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r468949) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2#referee-response-468949 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kembuan O et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 23 Mar 2026 | for Version 2 Olivia Kembuan , Universitas Negeri Manado, Sulawesi Utara, Indonesia Ferdinan Sangkop , informatics, Universitas Negeri Manado (Ringgold ID: 175496), Tondano, North Sulawes, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kembuan O et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? The manuscript is generally clearly structured and readable. However, the literature review focuses primarily on clustering algorithms and includes a number of regional or context-specific references. The manuscript would benefit from stronger engagement with more recent international literature on HR analytics, algorithmic decision-making in recruitment, and AI-assisted hiring systems. Incorporating broader global scholarship would strengthen the theoretical grounding of the study. Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Provide a clearer justification for analyzing only the 30 shortlisted candidates and discuss the implications of this sampling decision. Although some methodological details are provided, additional clarification of analytical parameters and preprocessing decisions would improve reproducibility. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? The conclusions generally align with the exploratory nature of the study; however, some claims regarding the usefulness of clustering for improving recruitment decision-making are somewhat stronger than the evidence supports. Because the analysis is based on a small, pre-screened sample and lacks external validation against actual hiring outcomes or job performance, the conclusions should emphasize the illustrative and exploratory nature of the findings rather than suggesting demonstrated improvements in recruitment effectiveness. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Yes If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? No source data required Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Data Science We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however we have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Kembuan O and Sangkop F. Peer Review Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.196340.r467509) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2#referee-response-467509 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Gupta D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 03 Feb 2026 | for Version 1 Deepak Gupta , Penn State University, University Park, PA, USA 0 Views copyright © 2026 Gupta D. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The manuscript addresses a relevant and practically important topic of using K‑Means clustering to support recruitment decisions in a construction consulting firm. The use of real organizational data, clear cluster descriptions, and intuitive 2D/3D visualizations makes the work accessible and potentially useful for practitioners interested in HR analytics and R-based implementations. However, the current version has substantial methodological and presentation limitations that need to be addressed before the article can be considered for indexing. The study starts from 161 applicants but analyzes only 30 shortlisted candidates who “met the minimum requirements,” with no clear justification of the selection criteria or their implications. This design means the clustering is applied to a highly pre-filtered subset rather than the full applicant pool, which severely limits generalizability to “recruitment strategies” or “workforce selection” more broadly. The authors should explicitly describe the screening rules used to select the 30 candidates (cut‑offs, qualitative judgments, etc.). The authors should re-run the analysis on the full set of 161 applicants (if possible and ethically permissible) or reframe the paper as a methodological demonstration on a small, filtered sample and tone down claims about recruitment optimization. Initial centroids are chosen manually as “Rejected = (60,75,85); Considered = (62,77,88); Accepted = (70,84,92)” with no methodological justification beyond being “chosen randomly,” which they are not. These values embed prior expectations about the three groups and risk steering the solution toward a desired structure, rather than letting the algorithm discover patterns in the data. The authors should justify the chosen centroids and make that explicit. In addition, run at least one standard initialization strategy (e.g., built‑in k-means in R with multiple random starts, or k-means++). The authors should also report whether the manually initialized solution is stable across different initializations; and if not, the conclusions about three clusters and their interpretation need to be more cautious. The methods mention Euclidean distance and cite general clustering references, but there is no clear statement on whether the three variables were standardized or used in raw form. There is also no discussion of data cleaning beyond a vague reference to removing “irrelevant or incomplete data.” How many records, if any, were excluded and why? Whether any outliers were identified and how they were handled. The authors should explicitly state whether they standardized the variables before clustering; if not, justify why not and show at least descriptive ranges/variances. They should also provide a proper description of data-cleaning procedure. If outliers exist (some points in the 3D plot appear distant from cluster centers), please clarify whether they influence centroid placement and consider sensitivity analyses. The discussion and conclusions repeatedly assert that K‑Means is “effective” and “improves recruitment decision-making,” yet there is no external validation. There is no comparison with actual hiring decisions made by the firm. No HR-expert assessment of whether clusters align with real performance or selection outcomes. If such data are not available, please qualify all claims about decision-making benefits as exploratory. The author states in the “Underlying data” section that the dataset is not publicly available due to confidentiality and must be requested via the corresponding author. At the same time, the text refers to R scripts and supplementary materials in a Zenodo repository as extended data. The authors should clarify precisely what is in the Zenodo archive (R code, example data, figures, documentation) and referencing it consistently in the methods and data availability sections. If contractual and legal constraints allow, please consider publishing an anonymized dataset (at least the 30 shortlisted candidates; ideally all 161) with no identifying information. If this is impossible, explicitly justify the restriction and explain how others can still verify the methodology (e.g., via synthetic data included in the Zenodo package). The conclusions and parts of the discussion are phrased quite strongly (e.g., “confirm that the K‑Means Clustering algorithm is an effective tool” and “this approach not only addresses challenges in evaluating applicants but also builds a foundation for sustainable talent management”), which is not fully justified given the small, preselected sample and lack of external validation. Minor comments: The authors are suggested to modify the text in the abstract, discussion, and conclusions to reflect that findings are preliminary and illustrative for one firm and one small dataset. The literature review is generally coherent but heavily focused on clustering and Indonesian/sector-specific references. There is relatively little engagement with the broader international work on AI in recruitment, algorithmic decision-making, or HR analytics. Tables 2-7 list centroid updates and distances in excessive detail. It is pedagogically useful but makes the manuscript long and difficult to navigate. Some of the tables can be moved to the supplementary information with their summary in the main text. There are some grammatical errors, please perform a proofread of the manuscript carefully. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Healthcare, 3D Printing, Artificial Intelligence I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 Feb 2026 Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani, Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia Response to Reviewer 2 Deepak Gupta (Penn State University, USA) We thank the reviewer for the detailed and technically informed evaluation of our manuscript. The feedback has been instrumental in improving methodological rigor, transparency, and interpretive clarity. Our responses are provided below. Comment 1: Pre-filtered sample and limited generalizability Response: We fully agree. The manuscript has been explicitly reframed to clarify that the clustering analysis was applied to a pre-screened subset of applicants who passed document screening. This design choice is now clearly justified in the Methods section, and all claims have been moderated accordingly. The study is presented as an exploratory analytical illustration rather than a full recruitment optimization model. Comment 2: Manual centroid bias and need for robustness checks Response: This concern has been directly addressed. In addition to clarifying the rationale for initial centroid selection, we now report results from multiple random initializations (nstart = 50) using R’s kmeans() function. The three-cluster structure remained largely stable across runs, with only minor variation among borderline profiles. These findings are now reported and discussed in the revised manuscript. Comment 3: Data normalization, outliers, and cleaning Response: The Methods section now explicitly states that all variables were measured on the same 0–100 scale, and therefore raw scores were used without normalization. We also added an outlier and sensitivity analysis , including a leave-one-out test removing the most distant observation. This test did not materially change the cluster structure, and validation metrics showed only marginal changes. These results are now reported to support robustness. Comment 4: Lack of validation against real hiring outcomes Response: We explicitly acknowledge this limitation. The revised manuscript clearly states that no comparison with actual hiring decisions or post-employment performance was possible. All statements regarding recruitment support are now framed as illustrative and exploratory , not empirically validated improvements. Comment 5: Data availability and Zenodo clarification Response: This issue has been resolved by clearly distinguishing: Confidential underlying data (not publicly shareable); Publicly available extended data hosted on Zenodo, including R scripts, figures, clustering outputs, and documentation. The Data availability section has been rewritten for clarity and compliance with journal policy. Comment 6: Excessive tables and manuscript length Response: In line with the suggestion, detailed centroid iteration tables have been moved to extended data . The main text now focuses on final clustering outcomes, visual interpretation, and discussion, substantially improving readability. Comment 7: Language and proofreading Response: The manuscript has been carefully proofread and revised to improve clarity, reduce repetition, and ensure consistent terminology throughout. Final note: We thank the reviewer for the rigorous and constructive critique. The revisions have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s technical soundness, transparency, and responsible positioning within data-driven recruitment research. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Gupta D. Peer Review Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446627) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v1#referee-response-446627 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Shaikh S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 08 Jan 2026 | for Version 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh , Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China 0 Views copyright © 2026 Shaikh S. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The paper presents an interesting and practically valuable idea by using K-Means clustering to support recruitment decision-making in a construction firm. The study groups applicants into rejected, under consideration, and accepted categories based on AutoCAD skills, planning/supervision report ability, and adaptability, and it makes good use of R and visualization techniques to demonstrate the results. The topic is timely and relevant to HR analytics and industry needs, and overall the manuscript is readable, logically structured, and supported by real organizational data, which gives it strong applied significance. However, while the work is clearly presented, it is only partly sufficient in terms of scientific rigor and presentation quality. The manuscript sometimes becomes repetitive and uses very long tables that make it difficult to follow the narrative smoothly. The literature review is decent, but it leans heavily on regional or context-specific studies, and it would benefit greatly from integrating more current international literature on AI-driven recruitment, algorithmic hiring, fairness, and HR analytics trends. Adding such perspectives would make the study more globally relevant and intellectually grounded. In terms of study design, the concept is appropriate, but there are some important weaknesses that affect technical soundness. The biggest issue is that the study only analyzed 30 shortlisted candidates out of 161 applicants, without providing a clear justification. This introduces bias and limits how generalizable the findings are. Another concern is the selection of initial centroids, which appears subjective rather than determined using a standard procedure such as random initialization or k-means++. There is also no explanation of whether data normalization was applied, which is important since K-Means relies on Euclidean distance and differences in scale can significantly affect results. These issues really need to be addressed for the paper to be scientifically strong. The paper partly allows replication because the clustering process is explained carefully and tables clearly trace centroid iterations and cluster formation. However, critical methodological details are missing. There is no detailed explanation of data cleaning, whether any applicants were excluded and why, how outliers were treated, whether ethical permission or company approval was obtained, and what settings were used in R. To make the study convincingly reproducible, the authors should provide anonymized raw data, the R script, and a clearer explanation of all methodological choices. The analysis and interpretation are also only partly sufficient. Although clustering has been correctly applied and visualizations are very good, the study does not present objective validation of the clusters. There is no numerical reporting of validation metrics such as silhouette score, Davies–Bouldin index, or any form of comparison with real hiring outcomes or expert HR evaluation. Without such validation, the findings are mostly descriptive, and the claim that clustering improves recruitment decision-making is not empirically proven. Adding cluster validity results and some form of comparison or evaluation would significantly strengthen the credibility of the conclusions. Data availability is partly fulfilled. While applicant scores are shown in tables, there is no formal dataset sharing, no supplementary files, and no data availability statement. Reproducibility is an important expectation, so providing anonymized data and the analysis code will help readers trust and build upon the work. The conclusions are relevant and aligned with the results, but they are currently expressed too strongly considering the methodological limitations and lack of validation. The study needs to acknowledge its limitations, including the small selective sample, potential bias, lack of external validation, and ethical concerns such as fairness and transparency in automated hiring. The tone of the conclusions should be slightly moderated to reflect that the findings are promising but not definitively proven. Overall, this is a promising and meaningful study with clear practical relevance, strong visualization, and a good foundation. However, to make it scientifically sound and suitable for indexing, the authors must justify or expand the sample, apply standard centroid initialization or explain theirs clearly, normalize or justify scale handling, provide quantitative cluster validation, share data and code, strengthen literature support, and include a more explicit discussion of limitations and ethical considerations. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Partly Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Human Resource Management, Artificial intelligence, Big data analytics capability I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 09 Feb 2026 Wahyu Muhammad Ramdhani, Educational Research and Evaluation, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta, 55282, Indonesia Response to Reviewer 1 Sonia Najam Shaikh (Jiangsu University, China) We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and detailed feedback. We have revised the manuscript substantially to address all major concerns raised. Our point-by-point responses are provided below. Comment 1: Limited international literature and lack of broader AI/HR analytics perspective Response: Thank you for this important suggestion. We have expanded the literature review and discussion to better situate the study within international debates on data-driven recruitment, employability, and HR analytics. Specifically, we incorporated recent global literature addressing analytical decision support, adaptability, and career sustainability (e.g., Akkermans et al., 2024; Donald et al., 2024; Rawat et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2024; Van der Heijden et al., 2024). In addition, we explicitly positioned clustering as an exploratory decision-support tool , aligned with international guidance on responsible and transparent use of analytics in employment contexts. Comment 2: Analysis limited to 30 candidates out of 161 applicants Response: We fully agree that this required clearer justification. The revised manuscript now explicitly explains that the clustering analysis was conducted on 30 candidates who passed formal document screening conducted by the company as part of standard recruitment procedures. We clearly state that the study analyzes a pre-screened assessment sample , not the full applicant pool. Accordingly, the study has been reframed as an exploratory methodological illustration rather than a comprehensive recruitment optimization model. Limitations related to selection bias and generalizability are now explicitly acknowledged in the Methods, Results, and Conclusions sections. Comment 3: Subjective centroid selection and lack of standard initialization Response: Thank you for highlighting this critical methodological issue. We have clarified that the manually specified initial centroids were derived from preliminary inspection of score distributions and used for transparency and pedagogical traceability. To address concerns regarding subjectivity and robustness, we have now: Added a dedicated subsection describing multiple random initializations using the built-in kmeans() function in R (nstart = 50); Reported stability checks , showing that the three-cluster structure was largely consistent across runs, with only minor variations among borderline cases; Moderated all interpretations to emphasize that clusters reflect similarity patterns , not predefined hiring categories. Comment 4: Missing details on data cleaning, ethics, and reproducibility Response: This concern has been fully addressed. The revised manuscript now includes: A clearer description of document screening and data preprocessing; Explicit confirmation that all analyzed records were complete and measured on the same 0–100 scale; A detailed Ethical approval and informed consent section clarifying the use of fully anonymized secondary data under a formal Data Usage Agreement; An updated Data availability statement ; An updated Zenodo repository containing R scripts, clustering outputs, and documentation to support reproducibility. Comment 5: Lack of objective cluster validation Response: We agree with this observation. To strengthen technical rigor, we have added a dedicated cluster validity assessment section reporting internal validation metrics. Specifically, we report: Mean silhouette coefficient (0.16); Davies–Bouldin Index (DBI = 2.05). We explicitly interpret these values as diagnostic indicators of modest separation, appropriate for exploratory analysis, and avoid presenting them as evidence of predictive effectiveness. Comment 6: Overly strong conclusions Response: The Conclusions section has been revised to adopt a more cautious and balanced tone. Claims regarding effectiveness and decision-making improvement are now framed as exploratory and context-specific . Limitations related to sample size, pre-screening, lack of external validation, and ethical considerations are explicitly acknowledged. Final note: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments, which have significantly strengthened the manuscript’s methodological transparency, analytical caution, and international relevance. View more View less Competing Interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Shaikh SN. Peer Review Report For: Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis in Construction Firms Using R [version 2; peer review: 4 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1388 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.190104.r446632) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v1#referee-response-446632 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Application of K-Means Clustering for Job...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Jaya DJ et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388", templates : { twitter : "Application of K-Means Clustering for Job Applicant Analysis.... Jaya DJ et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1388/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/172383/196340") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "196340"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "441238": 0, "441239": 0, "441236": 0, "441237": 0, "441246": 0, "441244": 0, "441242": 0, "441240": 0, "441241": 0, "446630": 0, "446631": 0, "446628": 0, "446629": 0, "446626": 0, "446627": 14, "441248": 0, "446624": 0, "446625": 0, "446632": 29, "446633": 0, "443830": 0, "467511": 0, "443831": 0, "467510": 0, "467509": 33, "467508": 0, "467507": 0, "467506": 0, "443838": 0, "443839": 0, "443836": 0, "443837": 0, "443834": 0, "467515": 0, "443835": 0, "467514": 0, "443832": 0, "467513": 0, "443833": 0, "467512": 0, "467142": 0, "467141": 0, "468943": 0, "468942": 0, "468941": 0, "468940": 0, "468949": 7, "468948": 0, "468947": 0, "468946": 0, "468945": 0, "468944": 0, "449137": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "0a953736-1c54-4c2e-8b1d-c54b853807b2"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });