Mapping the Knowledge about the Gender of Company Executives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The subject is suitable for this journal.
The title is clear, appropriate, and concise.
The introduction should advance the objective of the work and its structure.
The work needs a little literary revision of gender of company executives, before the methodology. The articles obtained can be used for bibliometric analysis. It also needs a section on bibliometric analysis in research.
It is necessary to review the journal format for in-text citations and figure titles.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions made.
Sincerely,
The authors.
Reviewer 1
The subject is suitable for this journal.
The title is clear, appropriate, and concise.
The introduction should advance the objective of the work and its structure.
According to Reviewer 1, we have included this new paragraph with the objective of the paper clearly identified.
The work needs a little literary revision of gender of company executives, before the methodology. The articles obtained can be used for bibliometric analysis. It also needs a section on bibliometric analysis in research.
According to Reviewer 1 and 2 we have changed the old structure of the paper and included Bibliometric analysis and Literature review reflecting now better the full content of the work.
New references
Corporate social responsibility and employee performance: a study among indian business executives
Chaudhary, R (Chaudhary, Richa)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Volumen: 31 Número: 21 Páginas: 2761-2784
DOI: 10.1080/09585192.2018.1469159
Successful ascent of female leaders in the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative, transcendental, and phenomenological study
Adams-Harmon, D (Adams-Harmon, Dawn) ; Greer-Williams, N (Greer-Williams, Nancy)
EQUALITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
DOI: 10.1108/EDI-01-2019-0031
It is necessary to review the journal format for in-text citations and figure titles.
According to Reviewer 1 we have revised the journal format for in-text citations and figure titles.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank You for the opportunity of reading this article.
General statements
The article presents the literature review in point of the gender of company executives for purpose of identifying lines on which future research could be directed in order to eradicate gender differences in the decision-making bodies of companies. Such research is actual and desirable.
The general concept of the article is correct.
Article content suite to J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex scope.
The article is based on 51 literature positions.
The abstract is adequate to the article content.
However, I indicated elements that require revision:
#1
Please justify why the range from 1992 to 2018 was selected?
#2
Please propose the graph in section 2 to clarify the methodology.
#3
Why in section 2 there is section 4.1?
#4
Please indicate the conclusion of the investigation presented in section 3. Some articles are mentioned by there is a lack of summary of them.
#5
In section 4.1 there are presented results of the hierarchical grouping using the average link method. Please justify why this method was used. What software was used to realize this? I know it’s indicated in 2 other places of the article but here is also necessary.
#6
The numbers of tables and figures are totally wrong. They are not correctly numbered. Please revise. Also, the reference in the text to them is not correct.
#7
The quality of the presentation and organization of the paper is poor. Please back to the journal temple and pay more attention to this issue. Also, try to better organize the results. Maybe reorganize the subsections. Now it’s really hard to follow.
#8
Please change “,” to “.” In the whole article to define the decimal part.
#9
The quality of table 1 must be improved.
#10
Lines 313-317 please revise it’s totally wrong. Look what is content and description.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear Reviewer 2, thanks a lot for all the corrections.
Dear Authors,
Thank You for the opportunity of reading this article.
General statements
The article presents the literature review in point of the gender of company executives for purpose of identifying lines on which future research could be directed in order to eradicate gender differences in the decision-making bodies of companies. Such research is actual and desirable.
The general concept of the article is correct.
Article content suite to J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex scope.
The article is based on 51 literature positions.
The abstract is adequate to the article content.
However, I indicated elements that require revision:
#1
Please justify why the range from 1992 to 2018 was selected?
When the search was performed on the Web of Science, this is the range of years that gave as a result.
#2
Please propose the graph in section 2 to clarify the methodology.
According to Reviewer 2 we have included a figure clarifying the methodology.
#3
Why in section 2 there is section 4.1?
This is a mistake, it has been corrected,
#4
Please indicate the conclusion of the investigation presented in section 3. Some articles are mentioned by there is a lack of summary of them.
We have included the conclusion of the research in this section.
#5
In section 4.1 there are presented results of the hierarchical grouping using the average link method. Please justify why this method was used. What software was used to realize this? I know it’s indicated in 2 other places of the article but here is also necessary.
#6
The numbers of tables and figures are totally wrong. They are not correctly numbered. Please revise. Also, the reference in the text to them is not correct.
We have corrected the number of the figures and tables in the text.
#7
The quality of the presentation and organization of the paper is poor. Please back to the journal temple and pay more attention to this issue. Also, try to better organize the results. Maybe reorganize the subsections. Now it’s really hard to follow.
According to Reviewer 1 and 2 we have changed the structure and the names of the sections.
#8
Please change “,” to “.” In the whole article to define the decimal part.
According to Reviewer 2 we have changed "," for "." and we have improved the table.
#9
The quality of table 1 must be improved.
According to Reviewer 2 The table has been improved to make it clearer.
#10
Lines 313-317 please revise it’s totally wrong. Look what is content and description.
According to Reviewer 2 we have changed the number. It was a mistake.
Reviewer 3 Report
The structure of the paper is accurate despite the fact that one of the main parts of the paper is not included. The reason of this statement is that the discussion in its standard form is missing at all. Thus, it would be adequate to include also this part of the paper separately. From the methodological point of view, more erudite statistical apparatus should be applied to create own postulates based on research outcomes. Despite these facts, the paper has scientific character and its scientific added value is accurate. The contribution of the paper lies in the analysis of the literature on Gender and Company Executives with the purpose of identifying lines on which future research could be directed in order to eradicate gender differences in the decision-making bodies of companies. The material is ordered logically, clearly and easily to follow. The sources are cited adequately, their formatting is correct. However, I would recommend to include more relevant sources from journals included in Q1 resp. Q2 of reputable databases published in last two years. All the citations in the text ate listed in the Literature Cited section. Quotations respect APA style. The level of the author’s knowledge is satisfying. It is obvious that author is oriented in the topic and that she uses appropriate terms. The overall level of language is acceptable. However, wider context of the presentation of the topic based on own research outcomes should be applied to make the results more scientifically valuable and understandable for the audience.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions made.
Sincerely,
The authors.
Reviewer 3
The structure of the paper is accurate despite the fact that one of the main parts of the paper is not included. The reason of this statement is that the discussion in its standard form is missing at all. Thus, it would be adequate to include also this part of the paper separately. From the methodological point of view, more erudite statistical apparatus should be applied to create own postulates based on research outcomes. Despite these facts, the paper has scientific character and its scientific added value is accurate. The contribution of the paper lies in the analysis of the literature on Gender and Company Executives with the purpose of identifying lines on which future research could be directed in order to eradicate gender differences in the decision-making bodies of companies. The material is ordered logically, clearly and easily to follow. The sources are cited adequately, their formatting is correct. However, I would recommend to include more relevant sources from journals included in Q1 resp. Q2 of reputable databases published in last two years. All the citations in the text ate listed in the Literature Cited section. Quotations respect APA style. The level of the author’s knowledge is satisfying. It is obvious that author is oriented in the topic and that she uses appropriate terms. The overall level of language is acceptable. However, wider context of the presentation of the topic based on own research outcomes should be applied to make the results more scientifically valuable and understandable for the audience.
RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 3
The reason of this statement is that the discussion in its standard form is missing at all. Thus, it would be adequate to include also this part of the paper separately.
Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have included a discussion section. We agreed that it would improve the document. We have also restructured the conclusions section, where we have included the limitations section and the section on future research.
From the methodological point of view, more erudite statistical apparatus should be applied to create own postulates based on research outcomes.
We appreciate your input. The authors understand that in the methodology used, the results come from an analysis of the descriptive statistics that include the manuscript and the software. We will assess for future work how to fit your suggestion.
However, I would recommend to include more relevant sources from journals included in Q1 resp. Q2 of reputable databases published in last two years.
Thank you for your suggestion. We have included the references [17] and [18]
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The requested changes have been made.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your time and effort in revising our paper.
Sincerely,
The authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank You for the revision. Generally, my comments were replied.
However, I still have an issue to solve:
#1
Please pay more attention of the quality of figure 1 which is an important element of presenting the proposed approach. In this form it hard to understand the information included there.
#2
Please use the English name of the "y" axis in figure 2. Please also delate the borderline of the figure.
Best regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thanks a lot for your time and effort in revising our paper.
We have performed the changes listed in the attached file.
Sincerely, the authors.
1.- We have changed the format of figure 1, we have used powerpoint to make a new design. We hope the quality has now improved.
2.- We have changed the name of the axis y, the word “Articles” appears now in English. We have also eliminated the borderline of this figure.
