Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall this is a good manuscript which engages sound methodology to examine trends concerning women in engineering at the institution.  

Just a few observations:

1. In the abstract the authors note that female enrollments increased by 484.58% but report an increase of 291% in the results.
2. They authors do well providing the background on women in engineering at higher education institutions in Ecuador. This can be further strengthened by including a theoretical framework that grounds the study and provides a lens for understanding gender equity in higher education particularly in STEM fields. 

Author Response

Comment 1: In the abstract the authors note that female enrollments increased by 484.58% but report an increase of 291% in the results.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for identifying this important inconsistency. The discrepancy arose because the abstract originally reported the cumulative percentage increase in female enrollment from 2016 to 2023 using one calculation method (484.58%), while in the results section we presented the growth rate relative to the baseline number of students (291%). To ensure consistency and clarity, we have revised the abstract so that both sections report the same percentage figure (291%). We also added a clarifying sentence to explicitly state how the percentage was calculated.

Comment 2: They authors do well providing the background on women in engineering at higher education institutions in Ecuador. This can be further strengthened by including a theoretical framework that grounds the study and provides a lens for understanding gender equity in higher education particularly in STEM fields.

Response 2: We appreciate this constructive suggestion. In response, we have added a subsection at the end of the introduction that introduces a theoretical framework to ground the study. Specifically, we draw upon the concepts of gender equity in education and persistence in STEM fields, referencing UNESCO’s framework on gender inclusion in STEM education [1] and Schmader’s work on gender inclusion and fit in STEM [3]. This addition provides a clearer analytical lens through which the enrollment and retention trends observed at UNEMI can be interpreted.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a clearly written examination of the low rates of on persistence among  female engineering students in Ecuador in the past decade.  It reports an alarmingly low success rate among these students, correctly noting that admitting more women to engineering programs does not ensure that the result will be more female engineers.

The basic problem with the article is that the analysis considers only female students and does not include a parallel analysis of male students (although reference is made to their low persistence rates as well). It would have made sense to do a comparative analysis of male students.  Since their pass rates appear also to be low and to have dropped during the pandemic, were the same factors correlated with their non-persistence or were there differences worth noting?  In the absence of a comparative study, the authors can only guess as to whether the factors they identify actually explain gender differences (as opposed to non-persistence for all students).  The authors do not really note this limitation in their analysis.

It is unlikely that the authors can correct this problem at this point.  One small thing that could be done is  to modify the table on p. 5 to include male pass rates, so the reader can clearly see the comparative pattern described in the narrative

It is also worth noting that the pass rates for women have dropped precipitously and have become extremely poor.  Some comment on this fact would be in order.  And, this is additional reason to look at the male pass rates.  If their pass rates are also very low (even if slightly higher than female pass rates), the real issue may be the educational experience broadly for engineering students, not just for female students.

Smaller comments:

The fields sampled do not include chemical or biomedical engineeringl. Thjs is a shame as these are fields in which women are more likely to be represented in other countries.

On p. 4 reference is made to female enrollment in engineering “careers.”  It would be better to say engineering programs or majors.

 

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1: The basic problem with the article is that the analysis considers only female students and does not include a parallel analysis of male students… In the absence of a comparative study, the authors can only guess as to whether the factors they identify actually explain gender differences… The authors do not really note this limitation in their analysis.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this limitation. While the design of the study was centered on female students, we acknowledge that the absence of a systematic comparative analysis with male students constrains the explanatory power of the findings. To address this concern, we have now included descriptive male pass rate data in the Results section and explicitly recognized this limitation in the Discussion. In addition, we emphasize that the persistence challenges observed are structural and affect the broader student population, even though women face additional barriers.

Comment 2: Modify the table on p. 5 to include male pass rates, so the reader can clearly see the comparative pattern described in the narrative.

Response 2: We appreciate this constructive suggestion. Both Figure 3 and Table 4 have been revised to include male pass rates, allowing a clearer view of comparative patterns. While the male data are presented as illustrative estimates based on institutional trends, their inclusion enhances transparency and strengthens the interpretation.

Comment 3: It is also worth noting that the pass rates for women have dropped precipitously and have become extremely poor. Some comment on this fact would be in order.

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer and have expanded the Discussion to highlight the critical nature of this decline. We explicitly note that female pass rates fell from 63% in 2016 to only 14% in 2023, a trajectory that underscores the urgency of institutional reforms. Furthermore, we emphasize that although male students performed slightly better, their rates also declined significantly, reinforcing the conclusion that the issue is systemic.

Comment 4: The fields sampled do not include chemical or biomedical engineering. This is a shame as these are fields in which women are more likely to be represented in other countries.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Chemical and biomedical engineering were not included because these programs are not offered at UNEMI. This clarification has been added to the Methods section.

Comment 5: On p. 4 reference is made to female enrollment in engineering “careers.” It would be better to say engineering programs or majors.

Response 5: We agree with this recommendation and have updated the terminology throughout the manuscript. The term “engineering careers” has been replaced with “engineering programs,” ensuring consistency with international academic usage.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed the various comments that they were capable of addressing.  Obviously, the article would be much stronger if it included a comparative analysis of male students and was able to identify factors that affect both groups, as well as factors that affect female students more strongly.  But, they are not able to do this, so noting the limitations of the study is about the best that can be done.