Gender Bias Versus Gender Violence in Higher Education: A Critical Analysis of the Literature in Social Sciences and Humanities (2018–2022)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on an interesting topic. I enjoyed reading it and the main points of the review are well argued.

The article is a critical literature review, which shows the difference in the number of publications referring to bias versus violence when reporting on gender inequality issues in the social sciences and humanities over the last five years (2018-2022). As the article states: "The results from 43 articles show that gender bias is discussed 12 more often (79%) than gender violence (21%) in publications between 2018 and 2022. We find that the 13 overemphasis on 'gender bias' tends to overshadow more serious issues such as violence".

Although the topic is of great relevance, and I enjoyed reading it, there are several shortcomings that I must mention and that  I hope could help the author(s) to improve the paper:

1) The structure of the literature review is descriptive and does not seem to be based on an analytical framework.

2) The choice of keywords for the literature review also seems poorly thought out, not discussed or justified, for example one would have expected additional (or different) keywords or to understand why some keywords, for example 'academia', are not included.

3) The number of articles reviewed (43) seems to me quite limited. As a result, the review ends up looking like a count between publications related to gender inequalities in academia in general and studies more specifically related to gender-based violence, and sometimes this becomes a normative argument and a call for more studies and research in the field of gender-based violence.

4) The review does not discuss why this is the case and does not consider how policies and policy changes might influence the number and content of research in particular socio-political contexts. For example, in EU member states, since the introduction of mandatory GEPs (Gender Equality Plans), there has been a huge increase in the number of studies and projects in universities that include both the (inevitably) broader topic of gender inequality and the more specific and focused topic of gender-based violence.

These shortcomings contribute to a very partial literature review that seems to ignore what the article itself seems to argue, namely that gender-based violence is ultimately part, albeit the most odious part, of the more general phenomenon of the asymmetrical distribution of gender power in society.

In conclusion, it is recommended that the number of articles considered be expanded and that the review is improved using an analytical perspective of presenting the results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1) The literature review structure is descriptive and does not seem to be based on an analytical framework.

Response: We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the descriptive nature of the literature review structure. To address this, we explicitly framed our analysis within the queer feminist studies of science framework, which is outlined in both the abstract and in lines 52 to 61 of the manuscript. This theoretical lens guided our examination of gender bias and violence, providing an analytical framework through which we critically engaged with the literature. By situating the review within this framework, we aimed to map existing research and challenge and reinterpret conventional narratives surrounding gender inequality in academia. We have also made further revisions in the discussion section to ensure that the analysis is more explicitly tied to the queer feminist framework, highlighting its implications for both theory and practice. All these changes are highlighted in the main text.

2) The choice of keywords for the literature review also seems poorly thought out, not discussed or justified; for example, one would have expected additional (or different) keywords or to understand why some keywords, for example, 'academia,' are not included.

Response: We have revised the selection of keywords to better align with the focus of our scoping review and to address the reviewer’s concerns. In addition to the original keywords, we have added and refined terms to ensure a more comprehensive search strategy. The updated keywords are now: binary gender norm, gender violence, gender bias, queer feminist studies of science, social sciences and humanities, and academia. We included 'academia' after reconsidering its relevance in capturing the broader scope of studies within the academic setting.

3) The number of articles reviewed (43) seems quite limited. As a result, the review ends up looking like a count between publications related to gender inequalities in academia in general and studies more specifically related to gender-based violence. Sometimes, this becomes a normative argument and a call for more studies and research in the field of gender-based violence.

Response: We framed our analysis as a scoping review, as outlined in the methodology section on pages 46-51 and 65-79, to map the existing literature and identify critical knowledge gaps rather than providing an exhaustive, quantitative summary. We acknowledge that the number of 43 articles reviewed may seem limited. Still, we focused on the gap between articles addressing bias versus violence in academia. This approach allowed us to explore a broad range of perspectives while identifying the specific intersections between gender inequality and violence that have been underexplored. While we recognize that more studies would help deepen our understanding, our intention was not simply to highlight a lack of research but to critically examine the existing gap and imbalance in the literature’s treatment of these issues. We have expanded the discussion on the implications of this gap in the revised manuscript, which now emphasizes the importance of addressing bias and violence as intertwined effects of the operations of the binary gender norm.

4) The review does not discuss why this is the case and does not consider how policies and policy changes might influence the number and content of research in particular socio-political contexts. For example, in EU member states, since the introduction of mandatory GEPs (Gender Equality Plans), there has been a massive increase in the number of studies and projects in universities that include both the (inevitably) broader topic of gender inequality and the more specific and focused topic of gender-based violence. These shortcomings contribute to a very partial literature review that seems to ignore what the article itself seems to argue, namely that gender-based violence is ultimately part, albeit the most odious part, of the more general phenomenon of the asymmetrical distribution of gender power in society. In conclusion, it is recommended that the number of articles considered be expanded and that the review be improved using an analytical perspective of presenting the results.

Response: In response to this suggestion, we have expanded the methodological section to provide a more detailed explanation of the scoping literature review framework, including additional references to support its application in the context of our research. We also clarified how the framework aligns with our study's theoretical underpinnings, and we added extra references to contextualize our methodological approach further.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I provide below some comments which may improve the quality of the paper: 

 

Insufficient depth in discussion on gender-based violence: while the paper aims to critique the disproportionate focus on gender bias over violence, the discussion on gender-based violence feels comparatively brief and underdeveloped. Expanding this section with more detailed analyses, including statistics, types of gender-based violence, and case studies or examples, would strengthen the paper’s argument and align it better with its stated objective.

Limited practical implications and recommendations: the paper would benefit from a dedicated section on practical implications and recommendations. Suggestions for institutional policy changes, targeted interventions, or strategies to mitigate gender bias and violence in higher education would enhance the manuscript’s value to policymakers, educational institutions, and other stakeholders.

 

Minimal discussion on intersectionality: the study briefly mentions minority groups but lacks a thorough analysis of how intersecting identities (e.g., race, sexual orientation, disability) intersect with gender to influence experiences of bias and violence. Adding an intersectional analysis or noting this as a limitation and suggesting it for future research would strengthen the paper’s theoretical framework and appeal to a broader readership.

 

Abstract could be more informative: the abstract currently provides a general summary but could be enhanced with specific findings or insights from the thematic analysis. Including a few key statistics or primary conclusions would make the abstract more informative and enticing to potential readers.

 

Structural issues in organization: the paper occasionally jumps between related themes (e.g., bias in promotion and gendered perceptions of competence) without clear transitions. A more structured organization, such as separating discussions on bias, violence, and structural barriers, could enhance readability and flow.

 

Author Response

1)Insufficient depth in discussion on gender-based violence: while the paper aims to critique the disproportionate focus on gender bias over violence, the discussion on gender-based violence feels comparatively brief and underdeveloped. Expanding this section with more detailed analyses, including statistics, types of gender-based violence, and case studies or examples, would strengthen the paper’s argument and align it better with its stated objective.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback on the need for greater depth in discussing gender-based violence. In response, we want to clarify that the purpose of our paper is not to conduct an in-depth analysis of either gender bias or gender-based violence but rather to highlight the imbalance in the research addressing these two interconnected issues. We focus on mapping the existing literature to demonstrate how gender-based violence remains significantly underexplored in comparison to gender bias within academic settings. As such, we intend to bring attention to this gap rather than offer a detailed analysis of each concept individually. We certainly recognize the importance of providing a clearer contextualization of gender-based violence. We hope this helps clarify our approach while reinforcing the significance of this research gap.

2) Limited practical implications and recommendations: the paper would benefit from a dedicated section on practical implications and recommendations. Suggestions for institutional policy changes, targeted interventions, or strategies to mitigate gender bias and violence in higher education would enhance the manuscript’s value to policymakers, educational institutions, and other stakeholders.

Response: We added a section to provide two key policy recommendations. Check in pages  474-501.

3) Minimal discussion on intersectionality: the study briefly mentions minority groups but lacks a thorough analysis of how intersecting identities (e.g., race, sexual orientation, disability) intersect with gender to influence experiences of bias and violence. Adding an intersectional analysis or noting this as a limitation and suggesting it for future research would strengthen the paper’s theoretical framework and appeal to a broader readership.

Response: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. We appreciate the importance of intersectionality in understanding how various identities, such as race, sexual orientation, and disability, intersect with gender to shape experiences of bias and violence. In our paper, we highlighted the gap in the existing literature, particularly regarding the limited attention given to these intersecting identities when explaining violence. We recognize this as a limitation and suggest that future research further explore these critical intersections to provide a deeper understanding of how diverse identities influence experiences in higher education. We hope this opens avenues for future work to address this important aspect.

4) Abstract could be more informative: the abstract currently provides a general summary but could be enhanced with specific findings or insights from the thematic analysis. Including a few key statistics or primary conclusions would make the abstract more informative and enticing to potential readers.

Response: We have modified the abstract to make it more informative and engaging. In response to your suggestion, we included the analytical framework we used to conduct this scoping literature review.  Thank you for your helpful feedback.

5) Structural issues in organization: the paper occasionally jumps between related themes (e.g., bias in promotion and gendered perceptions of competence) without clear transitions. A more structured organization, such as separating discussions on bias, violence, and structural barriers, could enhance readability and flow?

Response: The paper's organization is designed to reflect the main topics identified in the scoping literature review, focusing on highlighting key themes and gaps in the existing research. We did not intend to provide a detailed analysis of each individual finding but rather to map out the broader landscape of the literature. However, we understand the importance of clarity and flow in presenting complex topics. While we appreciate your feedback, we did not make any changes to the flow of the article, as the structure was intentionally set to highlight the various thematic areas of the review. We will consider your suggestions for future revisions to improve readability and coherence. We appreciate your thoughtful input, as it will help refine the overall presentation of the manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores bias and violence in social sciences and humanities through research literature review, filling a gap in the exploration of violence.  

 

The topic is interesting and with added value in gender equality, illuminating the need for research into repetitive bias which should be studied as a neglected issue in the debate on gender.  The reviewed 43 articles constitute a good basis for emphasizing the lack of research on gender violence compared to gender bias This is the reason that I believe that the article can be published as it stands highlighting an important issue that needs to be studied from another research point of view.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your thoughtful and encouraging comment. We truly appreciate your recognition of the importance of addressing repetitive bias and the need for further research in this area.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s)

It is very much appreciated the revision work that has been done and the article is now much improved. 

First of all,  the article have been  reframed using a "queer feminist framework". This entirely new theoretical framework allows for a more critical review of existing literature and research. The new methodology presented in the revised version of the manuscript, the 'scoping research' with related references, is convincing and certainly more in line with the nature and scope of the analysis, although the change in methodology appears to be formal rather than substantive, as the analysis and findings of the 43 articles included in the review are not changed. 

The keywords have been revised according to the suggestions, which makes the content of the manuscript clearer for the reader. Overall, the paper now has features and a concluding discussion that make it more suitable for publication, bearing in mind that the analysis has not changed.

This is why , before of the publication  I recommend  to the author(s) to  re-analyse the articles, taking into account both the new theoretical framework and the new methodological tool they have introduced in their work.

All the best,

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback and constructive suggestions. We appreciate the recognition of the revisions made to incorporate a queer feminist framework and scoping methodology into our review. We would like to address the points raised regarding the re-analysis of the articles and clarify how these changes have enriched the manuscript.

1. Incorporation of the Queer Feminist Framework

As noted, the manuscript has been reframed using a queer feminist framework. This new theoretical lens has allowed us to critically interrogate the reviewed literature, particularly its implicit assumptions about gender, binary norms, and institutional structures. While the primary analysis of the 43 articles remains unchanged in terms of content, the queer feminist framework has provided a deeper and more critical reinterpretation of the findings, emphasizing how gender biases and violence are interconnected manifestations of the binary gender order.

To ensure the framework's influence is evident, we added comprehensive conclusions at the end of each section—gender bias and gender violence—immediately following the presentation of the article reviews. These new conclusions explicitly integrate the key tenets of queer feminist studies of science, such as:

• Challenging binary conceptualizations of gender.
• Highlighting the entanglement of bias and violence.
• Critiquing the assumed neutrality of institutional structures.
• Advocating for intersectional and inclusive methodologies.

This addition enhances the analytical depth of the manuscript and offers readers a clearer understanding of how queer feminist studies critically inform our interpretation of the literature.

2. Application of the Scoping Methodology

We acknowledge your observation that the shift to a scoping methodology may appear more formal than substantive. However, this methodological adjustment has allowed us to better align the review process with the broader scope and intent of the study. By emphasizing the exploratory and iterative nature of scoping reviews, we have been able to:

• Systematically map the breadth and gaps in the literature on gender bias and violence in academia.
• Identify underexplored themes, such as the experiences of marginalized groups (e.g., LGBTQ+ and racialized academics) and covert forms of violence.
• Situate the findings within the context of ongoing debates in queer feminist scholarship.

3. Response to the Suggestion for Re-analysis

We understand and appreciate the recommendation to re-analyze the articles with the new theoretical framework and methodological approach. However, our intention in this revision was not to fundamentally alter the primary findings but to provide a more nuanced and critical lens through which they can be understood. The queer feminist framework serves as a re-interpretive tool, enriching the analysis without altering the core results derived from the reviewed studies. This approach ensures consistency while enhancing the manuscript’s critical and theoretical contributions.

We believe the revisions, particularly the new conclusions and theoretical framing, address the concerns raised and significantly improve the manuscript. Nevertheless, we are open to further refining the analysis if specific aspects are identified that require deeper engagement with the new framework.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful review. Your input has been invaluable in strengthening the manuscript and ensuring its contribution to scholarly discussions on gender bias and violence in academia.