Towards Closing STEAM Diversity Gaps: A Grey Review of Existing Initiatives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is devoted to a rather topical issue of diversity in various fields of activity. Gender issues are very actively developing and affecting more and more areas.

Therefore, research is relevant, moreover, it is devoted to specific processes and events that can be effectively studied.

However, there are some questions about the article itself:

1. The main one concerns the scientific novelty of the study - to a large extent, the presented article contains only enumerations of the data set with superficial analysis. The discussion paragraph contains again - a general enumeration of the above results (with obvious remarks, such as that programming is a profession in demand), without declared scientific conclusions, a deep analysis of the research results, a possible forecast, where appropriate. It is fair to say that statistics in itself is not a scientific result.

2. Research methodology. There is a question of processing the results of the study and the formation of the conclusions drawn. In general, despite the presence of the "methods" section, there is practically not a word about methodology and methods in the article. The enumeration of groups and phases, which is carried out in this section, is certainly necessary, these are algorithms, approaches to research, its separate parts, but this is not a methodology. It is not indicated how possible statistical errors were taken into account, whether methods of system analysis were used to evaluate the categories under study, etc.

As a result, in the opinion of the reviewer, this article in its current form is more like a review of an interesting project, but not a full or even partial scientific study. The reviewer would recommend to carry out an additional analysis of the findings, the patterns obtained in order to identify interesting facts, features, and / or develop a forecast that will create additional scientific novelty for the study. It would be useful to use methods of statistical data processing.

Author Response

The topic of the article is devoted to a rather topical issue of diversity in various fields of activity. Gender issues are very actively developing and affecting more and more areas.

Therefore, research is relevant, moreover, it is devoted to specific processes and events that can be effectively studied.

Thank you for these comments. The need for this study is based on the identification of the main approaches in STEAM projects to help educational institutions (schools, universities, companies, social initiatives…) design more efficient and better defined future educational projects.

However, there are some questions about the article itself:

1. The main one concerns the scientific novelty of the study - to a large extent, the presented article contains only enumerations of the data set with superficial analysis. The discussion paragraph contains again - a general enumeration of the above results (with obvious remarks, such as that programming is a profession in demand), without declared scientific conclusions, a deep analysis of the research results, a possible forecast, where appropriate. It is fair to say that statistics in itself is not a scientific result.

Thank you very much for these comments. We have added cross-analysis with a work focused on the academic side of STEAM education that we believe adds depth to the paper. We have also stated conclusions and reasonable predictions throughout the Discussion section. Finally, we have added a point in the Discussion section that discusses the scientific importance of the work by noting the value STEAM diversity initiatives bring in bridging the gap between standard educational offerings and student demand, and how this work brings that benefit to light. Regarding the lack of data analysis, we have changed the title of the paper and phrasing throughout to make clear that we are not completing a statistical or data analysis, but rather a PRISMA review of the dataset.

2. Research methodology. There is a question of processing the results of the study and the formation of the conclusions drawn. In general, despite the presence of the "methods" section, there is practically not a word about methodology and methods in the article. The enumeration of groups and phases, which is carried out in this section, is certainly necessary, these are algorithms, approaches to research, its separate parts, but this is not a methodology. It is not indicated how possible statistical errors were taken into account, whether methods of system analysis were used to evaluate the categories under study, etc.

Again, thank you very much for these comments. We have re-written the majority of the materials and methods section so that the process carried out is elaborated step-by-step. This includes elaborating the overarching processes (context in the CreaSTEAM project, search for initiatives, analysis of initiatives) as well as the precise details of each. We comment on why we did not use system analysis in the Materials and Methods section. Regarding the lack of consideration of statistical errors, we have changed the title and phrasing throughout to make clear the purpose and direction of the paper; we are completing a PRISMA review.

 As a result, in the opinion of the reviewer, this article in its current form is more like a review of an interesting project, but not a full or even partial scientific study. The reviewer would recommend to carry out an additional analysis of the findings, the patterns obtained in order to identify interesting facts, features, and / or develop a forecast that will create additional scientific novelty for the study. It would be useful to use methods of statistical data processing.

Thank you for all your comments. As mentioned above, we have added additional analysis by comparing results to those found in academic publications, we have looked more deeply at the importance of the analysis in a societal context, and we have developed forecasts about several data trends. We have changed the title and phrasing to make clear that we are completing a review based on PRIMSA scientific method, and, thus, that statistical data processing need not be a concern.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

please look at the comments on the file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for these comments. We comment on each individually:

• For reference 1-8…
  • Thank you for this comment. We have re-written the relevant sentences so that they follow the correct form.
• How do you construct this statement…
  • Thank you for this comment. We have re-worded the sentence to make clearer why informal initiatives are important.
• Give a brief description…
  • Thank you. We have added an explanation of the project
• This should be placed in the research methods section
  • Thank you. We have moved it
• Research design needs to be explained
  • Thank you for commenting on this. We have re-written the Materials and Methods section so that the research methodology is clearer and described step-by-step
• and this is more accurately displayed at the end of the introduction
  • Thank you. We have moved it
• PRISMA needs to be explained briefly
  • Thank you. We have added the acronym definition and a brief description
• where is table 5 located?
  • Thanks! Table 5 was mislabeled Table 3, but we have fixed it.
• where is the result of the research question (RQ1)?
  • Thank you for pointing this out. We have reformulated the introduction section to clarify the objective of the manuscript. Hence, there is no need to define a research question due the answer to our research question come from the data used for the MQs, and will be elaborated in the Discussion section
• strengthen the author's argument against the research results with supporting theories and the latest research results
  • Thank you very much for this comment. We have added cross-analysis with a systematic review of STEAM education in order to compare our results with published results and draw deeper conclusions. We have also added deeper analysis and more clearly indicated what the supporting theories are.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks to the authors for their comments, the final result has become more understandable in terms of communicating the results to the reader.

In general, if such a format of articles is acceptable from the point of view of the editorial policy of the journal (with an emphasis on the presentation of data), the reviewer is ready to recommend accepting the article for publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have carefully read the improvements that have been made by the authors based on the advice I gave before, most of the authors have followed the suggestions I have given. Thank you