Female Public Sculptures: Visibly Invisible

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• I suggest moving the last paragraph of the introduction (lines 42-46) to the conclusion, where it would be a better fit. It would also be helpful to add a paragraph to the introduction that briefly explains the research focus, why it matters, and how the paper is structured. This would give readers a clearer sense of direction from the start.

• In sections 2.1 and 2.2, I suggest discussing more explicitly the global "statue wars" of the 2010s–2020s to strengthen the discussion on the changing role of monuments in society and the ways grassroots movements have revised their significance. While the references in this section are appropriate, the recent transformation of the public meaning of statues deserves further emphasis  (see, for example, Paul B. Preciado in Art Forum: https://www.artforum.com/features/paul-b-preciados-year-in-review-248910/).

• I also recommend including this article which has a similar approach and methodology to the study of women's statues: Peruzzi, Gaia, Vittoria Bernardini, and Yasmin Riyahi. 2022. “Women’s Statues in Italian Cities. A Study of Public Art and Cultural Policies.” International Journal of Cultural Policy 30 (1): 49–66. doi:10.1080/10286632.2022.2157824.
• In section 3.1 or 6.0, I suggest adding a short acknowledgement of the limitations of using a non-random sampling method for the questionnaire. I also suggest detailing whether the characteristics of the sample reflect those of the general population of Ibarra.
  
  
• In section 4.0, my main concern is that results are mostly descriptive. It would be helpful to include at least bivariate analysis, especially since the researchers collected demographic information on their respondents. It would be especially interesting to know if and how gender and education level affect responses as these are highly relevant variables in this discussion. This would help strengthen the significance and depth of results.
  
  
• In section 4.3, lines 362-379 should be moved to the introduction or the literature review. The focus of the section should remain on discussing the results presented.
  
  

• The referencing throughout the article does not follow Chicago style as required by the journal. This should be addressed across the entire manuscript to ensure proper citation formatting.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for the time and effort dedicated to reviewing our manuscript and for the insightful comments provided. Your feedback has been highly valuable in improving the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the work.

In response to your observations, we have carefully revised the manuscript and addressed each of the points raised. Specifically, we have strengthened the theoretical and empirical contextualisation, clarified the research design and methods, and enhanced the precision in the presentation of results. Furthermore, we have reinforced the discussion and referencing to provide stronger support for the arguments and conclusions.

We are enclosing a detailed document outlining the changes made in each section of the manuscript, directly responding to your comments.

Once again, we are grateful for your constructive feedback, which has undoubtedly contributed to enhancing the quality of our article.

Yours sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The abstract does not simply outline the research. In summary, it contextualises the issue and, in our view, hastily concludes, bypassing essential discussion. In the introduction, the topic is addressed superficially and without adequate contextualisation. There are countless examples of women's history or their achievements. Key authors should be mentioned in a text of this length to provide context and situate the research within its historical framework, such as Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler, among others. None of this is elaborated upon beyond general statements. Beyond the immediate theme, there are historical implications in various areas that can support the theme beyond gender issues and open less obvious avenues that expand the discussion. In point 2, which concerns the monument and its role as a catalyst for societal memory, there is a lack of references to authors who support the theme. For example, the historian Alois Reigel's (1858-1905) work, "The Modern Cult of Monuments," could be relevant. Regarding the harmful effects of colonisation, Walter Benjamin's (1892-1940) theses on the concept of history demonstrate how the victors write history. 

The text carries a condemnatory tone that is overly obvious, undermining the impartiality needed in scientific writing. The text appears to interpret the past through the lens of the present, aiming to alter it, when in reality, we should examine the past to prevent repeating the same errors. It contains phrases that nearly suggest rewriting history. There are also references to sources like Wikipedia, even if indirectly. We firmly believe that such sources should not be used to present facts that demand scientific rigour, as these issues have been extensively debated within the academic community.

Although the significance of the research is of paramount importance, it does not seem to capture all the true greatness that the subject encompasses. Women have been depicted in public monuments throughout history, though in most cases they are only associated with their body shapes, not their achievements or social prominence. However, it is also important, if not more so, to discuss the authorship of these monuments or other creations rather than their figurative representations. Speaking of representation, in socialist or communist countries, public monuments were often not figurative but conceptual. Do women have a more significant social role in these societies, or were they valued at some point in history? In the case of Russian society in the early 20th century, we recall the well-known monument to socialist realism from 1937, which exalts the worker and the woman equally. The creator of this monument is also female, Veka Mukhina (1889-1953). What is the role of women in this society compared to, for example, South American societies?

We also get the impression, when reading the text, that recognising the female figure in public monuments will somehow make cities more egalitarian and inclusive. If such a relationship exists, it is not clear what it is or how it could be achieved. The analysis proposed cannot be assessed in isolation; it must be compared with other cities, especially those from different cultures or latitudes, in order to establish a connection and begin or facilitate an analysis of the outcomes. It is also unclear whether the lack of recognition of these figures results from a lack of culture, investment in people's education, or appreciation of heritage. We believe there are more factors than those presented as causes. Another point that warrants more attention is the absence of a questionnaire including male representations. Are they identifiable, or are we forcing an analysis that supports a hypothesis? 

As a final note, we have some concerns about the way the research was carried out and the statements it makes or the results it proposes. For example, asserting that the absence of women in public monuments distorts memory might be excessive, especially without support from leading scholars in the field. Another misleading claim is that monuments primarily serve to enhance the aesthetic appeal of public spaces. This is incorrect and overly simplistic regarding the function of a monument as a significant feature of a city. We recommend a careful reading of the 1961 book The Image of the City by American author Kevin Lynch (1918-1984). The conclusions presented in the manuscript appear to corroborate the assertions reiterated in the abstract. The significance of the subject matter is unequivocal. However, the text does not present novel data, and the additional information provided seems, in our assessment, to be imprecise and insufficiently substantiated by authors whose contributions we have previously emphasised as potentially pivotal. Consequently, we recommend a comprehensive revision of the manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank Reviewer 2 for the thoughtful and constructive feedback. The manuscript has been revised to provide clearer contextualisation of the research problem, a more explicit articulation of the methodology, and a stronger connection between the findings and the theoretical framework. The discussion has been refined for greater coherence, and the presentation of results improved to enhance clarity. References have been carefully reviewed and expanded where appropriate, and the conclusion has been adjusted to better demonstrate how the evidence supports the arguments. We are grateful for these observations, which have contributed significantly to strengthening the manuscript.

Yours sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely issue the representation of women in public monuments in Ibarra, Ecuador, and provides valuable empirical evidence of gender disparities in urban public art. The mixed-methods approach is appropriate, and the data collection from 124 sculptures, combined with survey responses from 1,200 residents, offers a solid empirical foundation. The theoretical framing drawing from feminist and sociological perspectives is well integrated and enriches the analysis. The paper’s strengths include its clear articulation of how structural gender inequalities manifest in public commemorative practices and the thorough presentation of survey findings demonstrating limited public recognition of female figures. The discussion effectively situates the case study within broader cultural and historical contexts of gender inequality. However, some areas could be improved to enhance the manuscript’s contribution: -The literature review would benefit from a deeper engagement with comparative studies from other Latin American countries or global contexts to better position the findings and highlight the novelty of the study.-The manuscript would gain from more detailed recommendations on policy and educational interventions that could realistically address the identified inequalities.-Some sections, particularly the conclusions, could be more concise to improve clarity and impact.Overall, this manuscript makes a significant contribution to understanding gendered dynamics in public space representation and is recommended for publication after minor revisions.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank Reviewer 3 for the positive evaluation and encouraging remarks regarding the contribution of our study. We have carefully addressed each of the suggested improvements. The literature review has been expanded to incorporate comparative studies from Latin America and global contexts, thereby strengthening the positioning of the research. Policy and educational recommendations have been elaborated in greater detail to provide feasible strategies for addressing the identified inequalities. Furthermore, the conclusion section has been refined to achieve greater conciseness and impact. We are grateful for the reviewer’s constructive feedback and recognition, which have been instrumental in further improving the manuscript. A detailed document outlining the revisions has been attached.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This essay presents a well-crafted case study that adds important context to scholarly discourse on monuments and memorialization by presenting a viewpoint focused on gender in a context outside of Europe/North America. I am excited to see the impact this article will have once published and commend the author for their clearly-presented, thoroughly-researched work.

There is one minor sub-argument that I would recommend addressing. While the study presents compelling evidence that 1) viewers are unaware of the identity or historical contributions of women memorialized in Ibarra and 2) that the memorial landscape is tilted heavily toward the representation of men, the study’s methods did not allow for an assessment of whether or not viewers recognized the identity or historical contributions of men represented in other monuments. In the paragraph beginning on line 326, the essay asserts that this finding “is indicative of a historical narrative that appears to favor men…”, however in order to present this claim compellingly, the authors would need to assess whether or not viewers recognized the subjects of monuments that depict men and whether viewers knew historical facts about those men. While I find the claim highly likely, the research method does not support this claim with evidence. I would recommend rewriting this section to propose this as a possible explanation rather than assert it as a direct claim.  

Beyond this one suggestion, I identified some typos and had a few clarifying questions that I would ask the authors to address:

83-84- I would recommend defining more clearly what “gendered war stories” means. Is it women’s participation in battle or contributions to military engagements?

93- I would suggest moderating the assertion to “many cities’” or “most any city’s” to reflect the rare instances where cities have devoted considerable space to memorializing women in monuments

152-155- I find the repetition of “It is imperative” distracting

229- "secondary moment” sounds a bit vague – perhaps “secondary process” or “second stage”?

362- should the first word in this line read “Memorialization” and not “Monomialization”?

409- is the description of historian Joan W. missing her last name?

422- “their unremarkable presence” might read better as “their presence going unremarked”

I am happy to recommend publication of this study and hope that these comments and suggestions about minor issues will be helpful to the authors as they finalize the paper. Thank you for the opportunity to review this excellent work!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank Reviewer 4 for the positive evaluation of our manuscript and for recognising its contribution to the scholarly discourse on monuments and memorialisation from a gender perspective outside the Euro-American context. Additionally, we have carefully addressed the specific comments regarding clarity, moderation of assertions, wording refinements, and typographical corrections throughout the text.

We are grateful for the reviewer’s insightful feedback, which has helped us improve the precision and readability of the manuscript. A detailed record of the changes implemented is provided in the attached document.

Sincerely,
The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your efforts in addressing some of the weaker points in the initial draft. We believe there is still scope for improvement. However, the changes made are significant and enhance the scientific maturity of the text! Best wishes for the future.