Gender Gaps and the Gender Parity Index in Research in a Colombian Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

All the statements from the focus group must be edited for readability.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reconsider the interpretation of the attitudes of the women reserachers  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a timely and regionally significant study that uses a strong mixed-methods design to explore gender disparities in research participation and recognition within the Department of Cauca, Colombia. Your use of longitudinal data (2013–2021) from MinCiencias, combined with focus group interviews, offers a nuanced picture of the gender gaps and disparities that persist in the Colombian research landscape.

The paper’s most compelling contribution lies in its contrast between quantitative metrics (Gender Parity Index, gender gaps) and qualitative findings. While statistical results reveal persistent inequities, the researchers’ own perceptions show a general unawareness or denial of such gaps, which presents a critical tension worthy of deeper theoretical exploration. This is especially true in the discussion of gender norms, caregiving responsibilities, and structural barriers, which your interviews capture well.

That said, I recommend minor revisions to improve the manuscript:

The English expression can be improved for clarity and academic tone. Several phrases appear to be direct translations or are syntactically awkward. A language edit will enhance readability and polish.

The introduction outlines key statistics but could better frame how this study contributes to broader debates on gender and research equity. A clearer positioning within existing literature (e.g., feminist institutionalism, gender performativity, or equity in Global South academic settings) would strengthen the manuscript.

The thematic analysis of researcher perspectives is important and insightful, especially regarding gender roles in caregiving and academic productivity. However, the contrast between perceived and actual gaps should be more fully unpacked in your discussion. Concepts such as “queen bee syndrome” are mentioned but would benefit from further theoretical grounding and citation.

Your conclusions would be more impactful if they offered specific recommendations—for example, for policy-makers, institutions, or gender equity advocates in higher education. Consider elaborating on how your findings might inform structural changes in research funding or recognition.

Review the reference formatting to ensure consistency and proper citation style. Some references appear to include placeholder text or inconsistent citation formats.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript presents important and relevant findings, but the clarity and quality of the English can be improved throughout to better support the communication of your research. Several areas contain awkward phrasing or overly literal translations that can obscure meaning. For example, in the abstract, the sentence “The triangulation of the information indicates that the gender gaps are high and the GPI is low, whereas the researchers do not perceive the existence of the gaps” could be rephrased for clarity. You might consider something like: “The triangulated findings reveal significant gender disparities and a low Gender Parity Index, which contrast with the lack of perceived inequality among researchers.” This rewording improves both clarity and tone.

There are several instances where word choice and sentence structure create confusion or reduce academic precision. For example, in the introduction, the phrase “a situation that is detected in the field of administrative management and the scarcity of financial resources for research” is somewhat vague and grammatically unclear. It would be clearer to specify whether this situation is a result of or simply occurs alongside challenges in administrative management and funding.

In the qualitative results section, some participant quotes are presented in ways that interrupt the narrative flow. For instance, the sentence “the number of women in the group has increased and there is still no gender discrimination for the projects” might be revised for accuracy and coherence. Consider restructuring it as: “While the number of women in the group has increased over time, the participant did not perceive any gender-based discrimination in project assignments.”

Attention to verb tense consistency, article usage (e.g., "the" vs. no article), and subject-verb agreement would also enhance the fluency of the text. There are also cases where transitions between ideas or sections could be smoothed to improve overall readability and coherence.

A careful copy edit by a native or fluent English speaker with academic writing experience, or the use of a professional editing service, would significantly improve the flow and accessibility of your article. Strengthening the English will allow the valuable insights and analysis in your research to be more fully appreciated by an international audience.

Author Response

Please see attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the attached report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Specific Remarks
•
l. 121, in Table 1, column 3, there is an exponent 1 attached to 67.70. What does it refer to? Component STEM. Moreover, “Steam” is not defined, contrary to “STEM” which is defined l. 119. “Steam” is also used l. 389. Change both occurences of “Steam” to “STEM”?
•
l. 225-227, this sentence has been already written earlier in the paper, specifically on l. 206-207. One of the occurences need to be crossed out. we could say that, at present, there is an almost equal proportion of men and women
•
l. 233-237, This is an expected outcome, considering that the participation of women in research has shown a consistent upward trend in each call for proposals, though it still lags behind the growth rate observed among male researchers the whole paragraph has already been written earlier in the paper, specifically on l. 208-213.One of the occurences need to be crossed out.
•
l. 290, the closing parenthesis is missing after “shift”.
•
l. 400-401, grammatical errors, “is” should be “ are”, “it” should be “them” (two oc- curences), as the sentence has three subjects. Or the sentence should be rephrased differently.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf