Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Congratulations for your iniativie. In order to make clear your contribution, I suggest you to suggest a Model like a Roadmap por Gender Intregation in any organization.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Main remarks

The paper is structured more as a review of women's influence in the forestry sector and does not look like a study. There is no description of the research methodology and no precise results described. More attention should be paid to describing the study's methodology and the results should be structured.

There is no information about Maine anywhere. It might be clear to Americans that it is their state, but to readers from Europe, Asia or Africa, it is not.

 I have the following technical remarks:

 

1.       The sentence "Therefore, developing interdisciplinary learning activities beyond the classroom will be a likely effective approach to increase women's engagement, inspiration, and commitment to the bioenergy/biochar industry" is repeated - in rows 54 - 57 and rows 57 and 60.

2.       Row 72 – the citation [14-19] is superscript. To be corrected.

3.       In Figure 1, as it is only for females, the explanation (*Others may include male, transgender, gender neutral, etc.) seems inadequate. So why are the other genders not given?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

A very good  (useful and necessary) proposal is described in the manuscript.

But, in a general way, a piece of important information is lacking.

Under the Summer research program frame. Which was the methodology applied for general program practical development. Which methodology was used in the research project design/development?

Which results were obtained? Perhaps a S.W.O.T analysis should be carried out.

In the present form, we do not see very useful information, other than a good and positive research design.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I appreciate the authors' efforts to significantly improve the paper, including on the description of the methodology and the presentation of the results. 

I consider the work to be suitable for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Changes were done in a proper way