Women and Leadership in Higher Education: A Systematic Review
, Mónica Adriana Villarreal-García and Claudia Fabiola Ortega-BarbaRound 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an important article looking at gender inequality in higher education and the way women act in their leadership positions. It is important, in my professional opinion, because academics are very much aware of this inequality intuitively, while this study brings data and offers a systematic review of this area of research.
This study reviews a number of 47 articles which had been published in the SCOPUS data base by using bibliometric indicators and the broad key words women, leadership, and academia. The study clearly shows, using a flow chart, how the authors narrowed down the number of relevant articles from 1905 to 47 (lines 125 – 126) and the methodology they used. They also provide a timeline and the distribution of articles by journal for their selected articles.
The authors used both a quantitative method, based on the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and also a qualitative method to discuss the analysis of the results obtained. The study concludes that women exercise leadership in higher education in various roles teaching, research, and management. However, their participation is unequal in each role with women picking up somehow more teaching role in which support and mentoring are more required and time consuming.
The question the study attempts to answer is that if women have equal access to higher education, why are they not given the same chances as men in terms of raising to leadership positions after they graduated? And there are some answers in the literature reviewed such as the „female advantage”, the internal and external barriers women face in their natural advancements to leadership roles, the glass ceiling.
This study is relevant as it identifies issues to consider for future studies, it informs public policies that cover gender equity and, especially, it helps women to change their self-perceptions to what they can do in areas that had been traditionally men’s domains.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, the paper needs further development. There are a number of assertions throughout the paper that need further support. It is not clear why they have only chosen one database for their review.
A stronger conclusion regarding what they have learned and how it contributes to our understanding of the issue being explored is needed.
Further comments are in the attachment below.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding comments to your suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is a very good overview of relevant research, and stands out in terms of its global scope. One suggestion I have is that you ensure your don't align sex with gender, and that you consider the issue of gender fluidity. Also, you might consider introducing the idea of emotional labour in the paper - there is a rich and emerging literature on same.
Author Response
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Paper is acceptable but needs some further editing to improve language flow.
Paper is acceptable but needs some further editing to improve language flow.
Author Response
Will improve the language by English speaking editor.
