Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the authors address the research gap on gender-sensitive practice in human professional education, especially social work。  The research method is rigorous, and the findings are clearly presented。 Here are some suggestions for improvement 

1. For the literature review and justification of the study, it is lacking reviews about current models of gender-sensitive practice in professional education and training (not only SDG), and no relevant review about pedagogical approaches in Field education to promote gender equity.
2. It has a fruitful discussion on sexual orientation and how it affects gender mainstreaming; it is good to discuss other gender issues。 such as: how Feminism and masculinity are interconnected and affected
3. Need to clarify the meaning of presenting Figure 1, giving comparative approaches without concrete statistical support is not a scientific way
4. Why has social cognitive theory been theoretically stated in this research? More justification is needed。
5. What if the culture and gender are intersected, and how is the influence on gender mainstreaming？ More discussion of cultural interpretation and intersectionality is suggested。
6. Showing the conceptual map of how they hypothesize the correlation of different variables is needed.
7. Further suggestions on the discussion part based on the findings are needed. 
8. Some of the research questions are not easily answered by the questionnaire, especially questions 1 and 3. A follow-up interview or a focus group is a way of maintaining data trustworthiness and triangulation.
   
   After considering the points mentioned, I hope this manuscript can be published soon.

Author Response

Comment 1: For the literature review and justification of the study, it is lacking reviews about current models of gender-sensitive practice in professional education and training (not only SDG), and no relevant review about pedagogical approaches in field education to promote gender equity.

Response 1: Thank you for this insightful observation. We agree that the original version of the manuscript did not sufficiently elaborate on existing models of gender-sensitive practice or pedagogical strategies in field education. In response, we have now added a new paragraph to the literature review (section 1.2.4), which synthesizes key models such as the Gender-Responsive Pedagogy for Social Work and transformative approaches to field education (e.g., simulation, gender audits, and activist placements). These additions enhance the conceptual grounding of our study and better situate our research within current international pedagogical trends.

 

Comments 2: It has a fruitful discussion on sexual orientation and how it affects gender mainstreaming; it is good to discuss other gender issues such as: how Feminism and masculinity are interconnected and affected

Response 2: As you suggest, we have expanded the discussion (third paragraph, Discussion section) to address how feminism and masculinity are interrelated, emphasizing that feminist pedagogy not only promotes gender equity for women and minorities, but also enables a critical examination of hegemonic masculine norms that shape professional training in social work. This critical approach supports more egalitarian and ethical professional identities, in line with the discipline’s principles of social justice.

 

Comments 3: Need to clarify the meaning of presenting Figure 1 Comparative Approaches to Gender Mainstreaming, giving comparative approaches without concrete statistical support is not a scientific way.

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The figure does not present statistical data, and we have now clarified its purpose in the manuscript. Specifically, we have added a brief explanation (line 106) to indicate that Figure 1 is conceptual in nature and is intended to summarize the main normative models discussed in the literature, rather than provide empirical comparisons. This clarification ensures that the figure is interpreted as a visual aid rather than as scientific evidence.

Comment 4: Why has social cognitive theory been theoretically stated in this research? More justification is needed

Response 4: We have now added a clearer justification for including Social Cognitive Theory in the study. Specifically, we explain how the concept of self-efficacy supports our focus on students’ perceived ability to implement gender-sensitive practices and how this aligns with pedagogical strategies explored in the research.

 

Comment 5. What if the culture and gender are intersected, and how is the influence on gender mainstreaming

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. We have expanded Section 1.2.3 to include a paragraph that addresses how culture and gender intersect, emphasizing the importance of cultural interpretation and intersectionality in gender mainstreaming. This addition reinforces the argument for a context-sensitive, transformative pedagogical approach in social work education.

 

Comment 6. Showing the conceptual map of how they hypothesize the correlation of different variables is needed.

Response 6: To address this point, we have now included a conceptual map Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of Hypothesized Relationships Among Key Study Variables.

 

Comment 7. Further suggestions on the discussion part based on the findings are needed. 

Response 7: We have expanded the Discussion section (last paragraphs before the Conclusion) to include more specific, practice-oriented suggestions directly informed by the study’s findings. 

 

Comment 8. Some of the research questions are not easily answered by the questionnaire, especially questions 1 and 3

Response 8: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion and agree that qualitative methods could enrich understanding of students’ reasoning and contextual application of gender knowledge. While this study focused on broad patterns via survey data, we recognize the value of triangulation and are planning a follow-up qualitative study to deepen insights, particularly around Research Questions 1 and 3.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title of Manuscript: Gender Mainstreaming in Social Work Education: Linking Faculty Practice, Student Self-Efficacy, and Institutional Climate

General Evaluation:
The article addresses a topic of clear scientific relevance and offers an innovative approach to thinking about pedagogies informed by gender perspectives. The manuscript presents a solid conceptual articulation and contributes to ongoing discussions in social work education and gender studies. The writing is clear, coherent, and well-structured, making the manuscript accessible and academically rigorous.

Overall Assessment:
The article is well developed and demonstrates strong scholarly potential. However, some aspects require further elaboration to consolidate the contribution of the work and to strengthen its analytical depth.

Suggestions for Improvement (Minor Revisions):

1. Literature Contextualization:
   It would be beneficial to clarify whether previous research has examined gender-informed pedagogies from the perspective employed in this article. Situating the study in relation to existing work will reinforce the originality and theoretical foundations of the manuscript.

2. Update Literature on Gender and Education in Latin America:
   The bibliography would be strengthened by incorporating newer studies on gender perspectives in education within Latin American contexts. This addition would offer a more comprehensive view of regional academic developments and socio-cultural conditions.

3. Clarification Regarding Sampling:
   Please indicate whether the student sample used in the study can be considered representative, or explain how this sample relates to the broader student population. Clarifying this will help assess the generalizability of the findings.

4. Description of Participant Characteristics:
   It is recommended to include more detailed information on the socio-economic, gender, racial, and other relevant social characteristics of the research participants. This will enhance the analytical rigor and contextual interpretation of the data.

5. Critical Engagement with the Concept of Self-Efficacy:
   The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of critiques or tensions surrounding the concept of self-efficacy. In particular, it may be useful to address the limits of individual-level theoretical explanations when the issue at hand is also shaped by broader sociological structures.

6. Ethical Considerations:
   Please clarify whether the study received approval from an institutional ethics committee. Providing this information is necessary to confirm compliance with research ethics standards.

Recommendation:
Accept with Minor Revisions

The article is strong and makes a meaningful scholarly contribution. Addressing the points listed above will significantly enhance its clarity, analytical depth, and academic impact.

Author Response

1. Literature Contextualization: It would be beneficial to clarify whether previous research has examined gender-informed pedagogies from the perspective employed in this article. Situating the study in relation to existing work will reinforce the originality and theoretical foundations of the manuscript.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have expanded Section 1.2.3 (line 381) of the literature review to situate our study more clearly within existing research. 

2. Update Literature on Gender and Education in Latin America: The bibliography would be strengthened by incorporating newer studies on gender perspectives in education within Latin American contexts. This addition would offer a more comprehensive view of regional academic developments and socio-cultural conditions.

Response: We have updated the literature review (Section 1.2.3) to include recent Latin American studies.

3. Clarification Regarding Sampling: Please indicate whether the student sample used in the study can be considered representative, or explain how this sample relates to the broader student population. Clarifying this will help assess the generalizability of the findings.

Response: The sample can be considered representative of the social work student population at the University of Alicante, as it reflects a substantial proportion of the total student body. Approximately 200 students enroll annually in the program, and the sample size used in this study provides an adequate basis for meaningful analysis of gender competence development within this context.

4. Description of Participant Characteristics: It is recommended to include more detailed information on the socio-economic, gender, racial, and other relevant social characteristics of the research participants. This will enhance the analytical rigor and contextual interpretation of the data.

Response: We have expanded the description of participant characteristics in the Methods section to include additional socio-demographic details.

5. Critical Engagement with the Concept of Self-Efficacy: The manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of critiques or tensions surrounding the concept of self-efficacy. In particular, it may be useful to address the limits of individual-level theoretical explanations when the issue at hand is also shaped by broader sociological structures.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. As self-efficacy is not the central theoretical focus of this study, we have used it solely as an indicator of perceived readiness. A deeper critique of the construct is beyond the current scope but could be valuable in future research.

6. Ethical Considerations: Please clarify whether the study received approval from an institutional ethics committee. Providing this information is necessary to confirm compliance with research ethics standards.

Response: This study received formal ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Alicante, in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This information is included at the end of the manuscript under the section Institutional Review Board Statement, with reference number UA2024-12-16/2, dated 23 December 2024.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.
Appears in the reference list but not in the text: Caywood, K., & Darmstadt, G. L. (2024).
The Lauritzen and Guldvik citation appears multiple times in the text with the year 2025, while it is listed in the reference list as a 2024 publication. Lauritzen (2025) is missing from the text but is part of the reference list.
The Jacobson López et al. citation is contradictory (year).
Several legal documents cited in the text are not included in the reference list. For the sake of scientific transparency and verifiability, the cited sources could also be listed in the references:
Spanish Royal Decrees: RD 6/2019, RD 901/2020, RD 902/2020.
EU documents: EU (2012) - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Regulation [EU] 2016/679 (GDPR).
2.
The manuscript describes the sampling procedure as: „purposively selected from advanced-level courses.” This description is too general. In the case of purposive sampling, the precise definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria is essential. In its absence, the replicability of the research and the assessment of the sample's representativeness are compromised.
3.
When describing the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the authors classify the model for the Self-Efficacy scale as having an „adequate fit.” However, the reported indices (CFI = .903, TLI = .890) are at the threshold of the accepted values in the literature (.900), especially the TLI value, which falls below it. Instead of the phrase „demonstrated an adequate fit,” a more cautious and precise description, such as „demonstrated a marginally acceptable fit,” would be warranted.
4.
The research design would have been significantly stronger with the inclusion of a comparison group. For instance, it would have been useful to also examine a subgroup of students who had completed an explicit, dedicated gender-focused course. This positive control group would have provided a basis for comparison and would have allowed for a deeper analysis of the effectiveness of mainstreamed versus dedicated gender education.
5.
The large number of t-tests and correlation analyses presented in Tables 4-7 raises the issue of Type I error (alpha-error) inflation. The authors do not mention the use of any correction procedure (e.g., Bonferroni correction). In its absence, there is a risk that some of the results found to be significant are actually due to chance.
6.
Although the use of the Cohen's d effect size measure is mentioned in the methodology section, these values are not reported in Table 4, where the results of the t-tests are presented. Statistical significance (p-value) alone is insufficient for assessing the practical significance of the results; reporting effect sizes is essential in modern scientific practice.
7.
The study's conclusions and recommendations are often general in nature (e.g., „universities should invest in faculty development”), which is not commensurate with the research sample, limited to students from a single Spanish university. The limitations to external validity should be communicated more strongly in the discussion and conclusion sections. 8.
The manuscript uses language implying causal relationships in several places (e.g., „teaching methods have a stronger impact”). However, the cross-sectional research design is only suitable for identifying associations, not for drawing causal conclusions. The authors should consistently use associative language (e.g., „are more strongly associated with”).
9.
The practical recommendations are detailed and valuable; however, not all suggestions follow directly from the study's empirical results. For example, the recommendation of „microaggression training,” which is mentioned in the literature, is not closely linked to the quantitative data presented in the current study. It would be important to clearly separate the conclusions drawn from the authors' own data from the general recommendations formulated based on the broader literature.
10.
The acronym SOGIE (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression) is introduced on page 7, but the text uses it prior to this without defining the full term. All acronyms should be defined upon their first use.
11.
There are significant textual overlaps between the abstract and the introduction, with some verbatim repetitions. This redundancy diminishes the quality of the manuscript. The introduction should provide a broader context and a deeper literature foundation, not merely repeat the abstract.
12.
The title of Figure 1 („Figure 1. Comparative Approaches to Gender Mainstreaming”) appears to be incomplete. The full, descriptive title should be clarified.

Author Response

Comment 1: Appears in the reference list but not in the text: Caywood, K., & Darmstadt, G. L. (2024).

The Lauritzen and Guldvik citation appears multiple times in the text with the year 2025, while it is listed in the reference list as a 2024 publication. Lauritzen (2025) is missing from the text but is part of the reference list. The Jacobson López et al. citation is contradictory (year). Several legal documents cited in the text are not included in the reference list. For the sake of scientific transparency and verifiability, the cited sources could also be listed in the references: Spanish Royal Decrees: RD 6/2019, RD 901/2020, RD 902/2020. EU documents: EU (2012) - Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Regulation [EU] 2016/679 (GDPR).
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for carefully reviewing the references. In response:

• The reference to Caywood & Darmstadt (2024) has been removed from the reference list, because as you pointed out, it does not appear in the manuscript.
• We have corrected the publication year of Lauritzen and Guldvik to the right year in the reference list (2025). 
• Lauritzen (2025) that was missing from the text, has been added in Section 1.2 (line 133)
• The Jacobson López et al. citation has been corrected to reflect a consistent and accurate year of publication (line 272). 
• We have now included all Spanish Royal Decrees and EU documents in the reference list, to enhance scientific transparency and verifiability.

 

Comment 2. The manuscript describes the sampling procedure as: “purposively selected from advanced-level courses.” This description is too general. In the case of purposive sampling, the precise definition of inclusion and exclusion criteria is essential. In its absence, the replicability of the research and the assessment of the sample's representativeness are compromised.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for pointing out the need for greater clarity regarding our sampling procedure. In response, we have revised the text to specify the inclusion criteria: participants were third- and fourth-year undergraduate students enrolled in the Social Work program (line 546).

Comment 3. When describing the results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the authors classify the model for the Self-Efficacy scale as having an „adequate fit.” However, the reported indices (CFI = .903, TLI = .890) are at the threshold of the accepted values in the literature (.900), especially the TLI value, which falls below it. Instead of the phrase „demonstrated an adequate fit,” a more cautious and precise description, such as „demonstrated a marginally acceptable fit,” would be warranted.

Response 3: Fixed (line 677)

 

Comment 4.The research design would have been significantly stronger with the inclusion of a comparison group. For instance, it would have been useful to also examine a subgroup of students who had completed an explicit, dedicated gender-focused course. This positive control group would have provided a basis for comparison and would have allowed for a deeper analysis of the effectiveness of mainstreamed versus dedicated gender education.
Response 4: While this study did not include a comparison group due to design constraints, we fully agree that analyzing differences between students exposed to mainstreamed versus dedicated gender-focused courses would offer valuable insights. We have now included this consideration as a recommendation for future research (line 866).

Comment 5. The large number of t-tests and correlation analyses presented in Tables 4-7 raises the issue of Type I error (alpha-error) inflation. The authors do not mention the use of any correction procedure (e.g., Bonferroni correction). In its absence, there is a risk that some of the results found to be significant are actually due to chance.

Response 5: In the revised manuscript, we have now applied Bonferroni corrections within each domain of analyses (Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes for t-tests; and within each conceptual block for correlational analyses). The Methods section has been updated accordingly, and the Results section clarifies it. These revisions ensure that the interpretation of our findings is not affected by alpha-error inflation.

Comment 6. Although the use of the Cohen's d effect size measure is mentioned in the methodology section, these values are not reported in Table 4, where the results of the t-tests are presented. Statistical significance (p-value) alone is insufficient for assessing the practical significance of the results; reporting effect sizes is essential in modern scientific practice.

Response 6: We agree that effect sizes are important for interpreting the magnitude of group differences. In our study, however, none of the independent-samples t-tests yielded statistically significant results. Given the absence of any detectable group differences, we decided not to compute effect sizes because, conceptually, Cohen’s d would add little interpretive value and could be misleading when the null hypothesis is not rejected and sample sizes are unbalanced.

Comment 7.The study's conclusions and recommendations are often general in nature (e.g., “universities should invest in faculty development”), which is not commensurate with the research sample, limited to students from a single Spanish university. The limitations to external validity should be communicated more strongly in the discussion and conclusion sections.

Response 7: We agree that the external validity of the study is limited, as our sample consists solely of students from one Spanish university. In the revised manuscript, we have strengthened the Conclusion section by explicitly acknowledging that the findings cannot be generalized to other universities or educational contexts. We now clarify that the recommendations are intended to be interpreted cautiously and primarily within the context of the institution studied.

 

Comment 8. The manuscript uses language implying causal relationships in several places (e.g., “teaching methods have a stronger impact”). However, the cross-sectional research design is only suitable for identifying associations, not for drawing causal conclusions. The authors should consistently use associative language (e.g., „are more strongly associated with”).

Response 8: We fully agree that our cross-sectional design does not allow for causal inference. In response, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and replaced any wording that implied causality with language reflecting associations (e.g., “is associated with,” “is related to,” “is linked to”). We have also revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections to clarify that the findings describe correlational patterns rather than causal effects. These modifications ensure that the manuscript is fully aligned with the limitations of the research design.

 

Comment 9.The practical recommendations are detailed and valuable; however, not all suggestions follow directly from the study's empirical results. For example, the recommendation of „microaggression training,” which is mentioned in the literature, is not closely linked to the quantitative data presented in the current study. It would be important to clearly separate the conclusions drawn from the authors' own data from the general recommendations formulated based on the broader literature.

Response 9: We agree that some of the practical recommendations included in the manuscript drew on the broader literature on gender-responsive teaching rather than directly from our empirical findings. In response, we have revised the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

Comment 10.The acronym SOGIE (sexual orientation, gender identity and expression) is introduced on page 7, but the text uses it prior to this without defining the full term. All acronyms should be defined upon their first use.

Response 10: We have revised the manuscript to ensure that all acronyms are defined upon first use.

 

Comment 11.There are significant textual overlaps between the abstract and the introduction, with some verbatim repetitions. This redundancy diminishes the quality of the manuscript. The introduction should provide a broader context and a deeper literature foundation, not merely repeat the abstract.

Response 11: We agree that this overlap reduced the clarity and distinct purpose of each section. In response, we have fully rewritten the abstract to provide a concise overview of the study without repeating sentences or detailed content from the introduction. 

 

Comment 12.The title of Figure 1 (“Figure 1. Comparative Approaches to Gender Mainstreaming”) appears to be incomplete. The full, descriptive title should be clarified.

Response 12: Title has been clarified.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think the revised version is clearer in addressing the topic and provides scientific analysis.

Just a minor review, I still don't agree with presenting the diagram (Fig. 1) this way. The author may transform into descriptive content in a relevant paragraph with a citation for your justification. 

Author Response

Comment: Just a minor review, I still don't agree with presenting the diagram (Fig. 1) this way. The author may transform into descriptive content in a relevant paragraph with a citation for your justification. 
Response: Following your suggestion, I have removed Figure 1 from the manuscript. The content in the diagram is integrated and described within the narrative text, as recommended.