Socioeconomic Empowerment of Women in Rural Peru: A Cross-Sectional Study of Internal and External Determinants in Chepén
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The introduction section needs a lot more citations. There a number of statistics without the appropriate citations.
What scales were used for the measures? This should also be cited.
Author Response
The introduction section needs a lot more citations. There a number of statistics without the appropriate citations.
Quotations added to the text.
What scales were used for the measures? This should also be cited.
A paragraph has been added to explain this requirement in detail.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper uses a cross-sectional study to explore the determinant factors that affect rural Peruvian women's empowerment. Currently, I think the quality of the article is still a certain distance from the publication requirements of this journal, and the author needs to make major revisions. My comments are as follows:
1. This paper has conducted a sufficient literature review, but the selection and explanation of variables are still not clear enough. For example:
What variables are included in internal factors and external factors? Or what questions in the corresponding questionnaire? The text only explains them in brackets in a few places: internal factors (personal and psychological aspects) and external factors (related to the environment). But for key variables, such explanation is obviously not enough.
2. Figure 1 does not need to be a separate figure. A paragraph of text description is enough. In addition, it also expresses a similar meaning to Figure 2. The content of the figure is too simple and the logical relationship is direct, so there is no need to draw a figure. Tables 4-7, for some regression results and standard tests, can be put in one table, and there is no need to split them into multiple tables.
3. Even if the quantitative research method is very simple, it should provide formulas and corresponding explanations based on the research content of this article. How to make up for the problem of too simple research methods? We must have a good topic and perspective, good data quality, good experimental design and logical analysis.
4. The electronic questionnaire plays a key role in this article, but the article only describes basic information in Line 345-350. It is recommended to provide a questionnaire question list or questionnaire template to help readers better understand the article.
5. Descriptions like Line 162 "【8】analyzes in her study..." are not standardized and correct reference methods. Please check and modify the entire article.
6. What does "see annex 7" in Line 341 mean?
Author Response
1. This paper has conducted a sufficient literature review, but the selection and explanation of variables are still not clear enough. For example:
What variables are included in internal factors and external factors? Or what questions in the corresponding questionnaire? The text only explains them in brackets in a few places: internal factors (personal and psychological aspects) and external factors (related to the environment). But for key variables, such explanation is obviously not enough.
Description of Study Variables
The research variables were operationalized as follows:
Determining Factors (Independent Variable) This variable was divided into two main dimensions: a) Internal Factors: These encompass the individual psychological and personal characteristics that influence women's empowerment. This dimension includes: - Individual psychological competencies: Measured through items related to self-confidence, risk-taking propensity, autonomy, innovation capacity, and achievement motivation. Sample questions included: "I feel confident making important decisions on my own" and "I am willing to take risks to achieve my goals." - Collective psychological competencies: Assessed through items focused on interpersonal skills, including communication abilities, leadership capacity, negotiation skills, and teamwork capabilities. Example items were: "I can effectively express my opinions in group settings" and "I can influence others to support my initiatives." b) External Factors: These relate to environmental and contextual elements that affect women's empowerment. This dimension includes: - Economic conditions: Measured through items about access to financial resources, employment opportunities, and income stability. Example questions were: "I have adequate access to financial resources for my needs" and "There are sufficient employment opportunities for women in my community." - Cultural factors: Assessed through items about social norms, cultural beliefs, and community attitudes toward women's roles. Sample items included: "In my community, women are respected as decision-makers" and "Traditional beliefs in my area support women's professional development."
Female Empowerment (Dependent Variable) This variable was assessed through three dimensions: a) Education and Objectives: Measured women's access to educational opportunities and their ability to set and pursue personal and professional goals. Example items included: "I have had sufficient opportunities to advance my education" and "I can establish and work toward my own life objectives." b) Autonomy and Decisions: Evaluated women's ability to make independent choices and exercise control over their lives. Sample questions were: "I make my own decisions about household expenditures" and "I can freely choose how to spend my personal time." c) Current Situation: Assessed women's perception of their present economic, social, and personal status. Example items included: "My current economic situation allows me to meet my basic needs" and "I am satisfied with my current role in my community."
Socioeconomic Level (Moderator Variable) This variable was measured through two dimensions: a) Financial Dimension: Evaluated through items about income level, assets, and economic stability. Example questions included: "What is your approximate monthly household income?" and "Do you own or rent your home?" b) Cultural Dimension: Assessed through items about educational attainment, access to information, and cultural participation. Sample items were: "What is your highest level of education completed?" and "How frequently do you participate in cultural or community events?" Each questionnaire item was rated on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 represented "Strongly disagree" and 5 represented "Strongly agree" for attitudinal questions, or appropriate categorical options for demographic items. The complete questionnaire consisted of 27 items distributed across the three main variables (10 items for Determining Factors, 13 items for Female Empowerment, and 4 items for Socioeconomic Level).
2. Figure 1 does not need to be a separate figure. A paragraph of text description is enough. In addition, it also expresses a similar meaning to Figure 2. The content of the figure is too simple and the logical relationship is direct, so there is no need to draw a figure. Tables 4-7, for some regression results and standard tests, can be put in one table, and there is no need to split them into multiple tables.
The research followed a moderation model design where Socioeconomic Level (M) was examined as a moderating variable in the relationship between Determining Factors (V1) as the independent variable and Female Empowerment (V2) as the dependent variable. This design allows for the analysis of how socioeconomic status influences the strength or direction of the relationship between the determinants and women's empowerment in Chepén.
The tables were consolidated and summarized as suggested.
Some images were suppressed by narrated explanation.
3. Even if the quantitative research method is very simple, it should provide formulas and corresponding explanations based on the research content of this article. How to make up for the problem of too simple research methods? We must have a good topic and perspective, good data quality, good experimental design and logical analysis.
ADDED A SECTION CALLED:
Research design and analytical model.
4. The electronic questionnaire plays a key role in this article, but the article only describes basic information in Line 345-350. It is recommended to provide a questionnaire question list or questionnaire template to help readers better understand the article.
aggregate questionnaire
5. Descriptions like Line 162 "【8】analyzes in her study..." are not standardized and correct reference methods. Please check and modify the entire article.
corrected in the manuscript
6. What does "see annex 7" in Line 341 mean?
corrected, it was a typo.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Author,
Congratulations because you and the other writing team have successfully completed the writing of this manuscript. I have read this manuscript with great interest. The related theme "Socioeconomic empowerment of women in rural Peru: A cross-sectional study of internal and external determinants in Chepén" is quite an interesting theme because the issue of women's empowerment is one of the current global issues. However, even so, I feel that this manuscript still needs some improvements in several parts.
First, in the abstract section. I see that this abstract is mediocre; there are no special aspects that we can see as readers. This section should start with the global issue of the theme you are writing, then continue with the importance of this research being conducted. In this section, the implications of the research results need to be made operationally. Try to write specifically in this section, theoretical contributions and practical contributions.
Second, in the introduction section. I see this section is too long. It is better if this section is revised using a deductive-inductive pattern. There are several aspects that have not been included in this section. In this section, although you have presented various theories that are the basis and supported by several previous studies, I see that you have not explained whether this study was conducted from the same or different perspective from previous studies. In this section, you need to explain whether there is anything new or not. In addition, I found that the previous studies you referred to were old studies. When talking about women's empowerment, there have been many recent studies conducted. I suggest you cite the latest research, considering that this is a social research that is developing very rapidly. In this section too, I have not found the research questions you asked more operationally.
Third, in the method section. The validity and reliability of the instrument need to be explained. Is the instrument you used really feasible? In addition, I have not found in detail the indicators used for each variable and what is the measurement scale?
Fourth, in the discussion section. This section needs to be analyzed more deeply. I see no relationship between the theories mentioned in the introduction and the theories in the discussion section.
Fifth, in the conclusion section. In this section, theoretical implications and practical implications are not yet apparent. In addition, this section also needs to convey what the shortcomings of this study are and what the recommendations for further research are.
Sixth, the reference section. Remember, this is social research. The recency of the references is very important.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Strict proof reading is required
Author Response
First, in the abstract section. I see that this abstract is mediocre; there are no special aspects that we can see as readers. This section should start with the global issue of the theme you are writing, then continue with the importance of this research being conducted. In this section, the implications of the research results need to be made operationally. Try to write specifically in this section, theoretical contributions and practical contributions.
Abstract: This study examines the determinant factors of women's empowerment in Chepén, Peru, during 2024, analyzing how socioeconomic status potentially moderates this relationship. Using a quantitative approach with a non-experimental, cross-sectional design, the research surveyed 367 women aged 22-52 years through digital questionnaires employing validated scales. Results revealed that both internal factors (individual and collective psychological competencies) and external factors (economic and cultural conditions) significantly influence female empowerment (β = 0.57, p = .049 and β = 0.87, p = .039, respectively). Contrary to our hypothesis, socioeconomic status did not significantly moderate these relationships (internal factors × socioeconomic level: β = 0.02, p = .323; external factors × socioeconomic level: β = -0.02, p = .584). The models demonstrated strong explanatory power, with internal factors explaining 84.3% and external factors explaining 58.5% of the variance in women's empowerment. The study found moderate levels of autonomy and decision-making (44.8%) and cultural dimensions (43.3%). While 76.1% of participants had higher education, 41.8% earned below S/1500, highlighting a significant education-income gap. These findings suggest that psychological competencies and sociocultural environment enhancement are more critical than initial economic conditions for promoting women's empowerment across all socioeconomic strata. The study recommends implementing targeted public policies to improve cultural and economic conditions, establish flexible educational programs, and promote dignified employment opportunities that recognize women's capabilities regardless of socioeconomic background.
Keywords: determining factors; female empowerment; socioeconomic status; rural development; gender equality; psychological competencies; cultural conditions
Second, in the introduction section. I see this section is too long. It is better if this section is revised using a deductive-inductive pattern. There are several aspects that have not been included in this section. In this section, although you have presented various theories that are the basis and supported by several previous studies, I see that you have not explained whether this study was conducted from the same or different perspective from previous studies. In this section, you need to explain whether there is anything new or not. In addition, I found that the previous studies you referred to were old studies. When talking about women's empowerment, there have been many recent studies conducted. I suggest you cite the latest research, considering that this is a social research that is developing very rapidly. In this section too, I have not found the research questions you asked more operationally.
summarized as will be seen in the attached manuscript
Third, in the method section. The validity and reliability of the instrument need to be explained. Is the instrument you used really feasible? In addition, I have not found in detail the indicators used for each variable and what is the measurement scale?
(see manuscript)
Fourth, in the discussion section. This section needs to be analyzed more deeply. I see no relationship between the theories mentioned in the introduction and the theories in the discussion section.
Improved as will be seen in the manuscript.
Fifth, in the conclusion section. In this section, theoretical implications and practical implications are not yet apparent. In addition, this section also needs to convey what the shortcomings of this study are and what the recommendations for further research are.
improved (see manuscript)
Sixth, the reference section. Remember, this is social research. The recency of the references is very important.
updated references
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The structure of the introduction, mixed with the literature review, is chaos. The research background, questions, objectives, hypotheses, and prior studies are interwoven into a few lengthy paragraphs, resulting in redundancy and a lack of coherence. Additionally, there are issues with language clarity, making the section difficult to follow. The literature review does not sufficiently define the study’s contribution to the existing research gap. The authors should reorganize the introduction by clearly delineating its components and structuring the literature review with subheadings to categorize previous studies effectively. Furthermore, the study’s theoretical positioning should be explicitly defined.
The methodology section lacks crucial details regarding the questionnaire design. Some key constructs, such as "internal factors," are not clearly defined. Additionally, the conceptual framework outlining the proposed dimensions, their interrelationships, and the underlying theoretical foundations is absent. The authors should provide a more structured discussion on how the questionnaire was developed, including the rationale for item selection and inclusion criteria.
As acknowledged by the authors, the survey does not employ a random sampling method and is limited to respondents from a single city. The study’s sampling limitations should be explicitly discussed, and potential biases should be addressed. Furthermore, the authors should clarify whether any measures were taken to mitigate common method biases.
The categorization of variables in Table 1 appears arbitrary. For example, age is segmented using thresholds of 32 and 42, but no justification is provided. Similarly, the category "others" for marital status is ambiguous. For educational attainment, it is unclear how individuals with education experience below higher education are classified. Additionally, for income levels, the authors may have overlooked the influence of household income, which could better represent economic status rather than personal income alone. A clearer and more justifiable categorization of these variables is necessary.
The approach used to condense items into single dimensions and examine their percentages is unclear. It appears that factor analysis may have been employed, but further clarification and supporting evidence are required to establish validity. Additionally, the qualitative labels used, such as "under" and "high," lack a clear quantitative interpretation and should be explicitly defined.
The moderation analysis presented in Tables 4–7 raises several concerns. The abbreviation "FI × NIVSOC" is not defined, making it difficult to interpret the results. Moreover, it appears that not all key dimensions—such as external factors mentioned earlier—are incorporated into a comprehensive model. If the authors intend to test the moderation effects across multiple independent variables, a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach might be more appropriate than running separate models with partial variables. Additionally, control variables such as age and education should be included to enhance the robustness of the analysis.
Overall, the study’s contribution to the existing literature appears limited, and the methodological and statistical rigor needs improvement. The authors should provide additional details and refine their analysis to strengthen the study’s validity and impact.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors must improve the quality of writing.
Author Response
The structure of the introduction, mixed with the literature review, is chaos. The research background, questions, objectives, hypotheses, and prior studies are interwoven into a few lengthy paragraphs, resulting in redundancy and a lack of coherence. Additionally, there are issues with language clarity, making the section difficult to follow. The literature review does not sufficiently define the study’s contribution to the existing research gap. The authors should reorganize the introduction by clearly delineating its components and structuring the literature review with subheadings to categorize previous studies effectively. Furthermore, the study’s theoretical positioning should be explicitly defined.
was completely restructured, as evidenced in the manuscript
The methodology section lacks crucial details regarding the questionnaire design. Some key constructs, such as "internal factors," are not clearly defined. Additionally, the conceptual framework outlining the proposed dimensions, their interrelationships, and the underlying theoretical foundations is absent. The authors should provide a more structured discussion on how the questionnaire was developed, including the rationale for item selection and inclusion criteria.
an improved version of the methodological aspect was added.
As acknowledged by the authors, the survey does not employ a random sampling method and is limited to respondents from a single city. The study’s sampling limitations should be explicitly discussed, and potential biases should be addressed. Furthermore, the authors should clarify whether any measures were taken to mitigate common method biases.
added to the study limitations section.
The categorization of variables in Table 1 appears arbitrary. For example, age is segmented using thresholds of 32 and 42, but no justification is provided. Similarly, the category "others" for marital status is ambiguous. For educational attainment, it is unclear how individuals with education experience below higher education are classified. Additionally, for income levels, the authors may have overlooked the influence of household income, which could better represent economic status rather than personal income alone. A clearer and more justifiable categorization of these variables is necessary.
carried out with the care that has been requested by recalculating everything
The approach used to condense items into single dimensions and examine their percentages is unclear. It appears that factor analysis may have been employed, but further clarification and supporting evidence are required to establish validity. Additionally, the qualitative labels used, such as "under" and "high," lack a clear quantitative interpretation and should be explicitly defined.
FACTORIAL LOADINGS AND BIRD WERE INCLUDED TO GIVE MORE WEIGHT TO THE STUDY.
The moderation analysis presented in Tables 4–7 raises several concerns. The abbreviation "FI × NIVSOC" is not defined, making it difficult to interpret the results. Moreover, it appears that not all key dimensions—such as external factors mentioned earlier—are incorporated into a comprehensive model. If the authors intend to test the moderation effects across multiple independent variables, a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach might be more appropriate than running separate models with partial variables. Additionally, control variables such as age and education should be included to enhance the robustness of the analysis.
spss process (based on bootstrapping) was used.
abbreviations were corrected.
Overall, the study’s contribution to the existing literature appears limited, and the methodological and statistical rigor needs improvement. The authors should provide additional details and refine their analysis to strengthen the study’s validity and impact.
more literature was added.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The article is well crafted and was ablet to answer four basic requirements for a journal article namely: why the study was done; what exactly did the researcher/s do in terms of research design and methods; what is it that they found in terms of results, and these were presented in a logical way and lastly how the study will advance knowledge in the field. Although this seems like small-scale research the findings and discussion sections contribute the field. The strength of the paper was in presenting a literature in detail and for the findings to align with the discussion.
On the technical minor editing is required before accepting the paper. For instance, page 3 has no paragraph, and the work is too long. On page 5 INEI line 213 was written in abbreviations yet first time it would be advisable to have the words in full for the reviewer not to look up for the full words.
Author Response
The article is well crafted and was ablet to answer four basic requirements for a journal article namely: why the study was done; what exactly did the researcher/s do in terms of research design and methods; what is it that they found in terms of results, and these were presented in a logical way and lastly how the study will advance knowledge in the field. Although this seems like small-scale research the findings and discussion sections contribute the field. The strength of the paper was in presenting a literature in detail and for the findings to align with the discussion.
Thank you for your appreciation.
On the technical minor editing is required before accepting the paper. For instance, page 3 has no paragraph, and the work is too long. On page 5 INEI line 213 was written in abbreviations yet first time it would be advisable to have the words in full for the reviewer not to look up for the full words.
Sheet 3 = Sectioned paragraphs.
INEI= INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE ESTADISTICA E INFORMATICA. (corrected in word)
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author has responded to all comments and made appropriate modifications, and I believe that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
Author Response
The author has responded to all comments and made appropriate modifications, and I believe that the revised manuscript is suitable for publication.
Thank you!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Author,.
Thank you for the improvements you have made to this manuscript. It is much better now than before.
Author Response
Thank you for the improvements you have made to this manuscript. It is much better now than before.
Thank you very much!
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors partially addressed my comments, but many important issues remain unresolved, affecting readability and scientific quality. The introduction was unclear before and is now even more confusing with the newly added content. No grounds support the action to split the internal and external factors into two separate models. Additionally, my suggestion to include control variables has not been followed. No substantial methodological improvement and recalculation from the last version, with the results staying the same. The regression results are incomplete, missing results for other variables and key statistics. There are also numerous formatting and language errors, suggesting the manuscript was not carefully proofread before submission. Moreover, the authors have not clearly, comprehensively, or directly responded to my comments point-by-point. For example, the phrase "FACTORIAL LOADINGS AND BIRD" is unclear, and I cannot understand its meaning. Overall, it appears the authors did not take sufficient care with the manuscript or seriously respond to the review feedback.
Author Response
1. Corrected introduction.
2. Unification of models:
In reviewing the relevance of maintaining two structural models -one that addresses the internal factors of female empowerment and another that analyzes the external factors- we consider it essential to explain in an integrated manner the logic behind this methodological decision. Our starting point is the conceptual distinction proposed by Zimmerman (1995), who points out that empowerment operates at different levels: the psychological -related to self-efficacy beliefs and sense of control- and the structural, linked to the availability of resources and opportunities offered by the environment. Along the same lines, Malhotra and Schuler (2005) recommend evaluating the "resources/agency" and "context/structures" spheres separately before exploring how they converge, to avoid diluting different causal mechanisms in a single statistical pathway.
Adding to this theoretical underpinning is empirical evidence from recent research in Latin America and Asia, which demonstrates a substantial improvement in overall adjustment when internal and external factors are modeled independently and then their specific interactions are examined. By replicating that approach, our preliminary analyses showed that collinearity between items is drastically reduced (VIFs dropped below critical thresholds) and that fit indices-especially SRMR and NFI-improve by more than 0.03 points when moving from one unified model to two specialized models. In addition, discriminant validity was compromised when a single model was forced: the HTMT coefficient between the two dimensions jumped above 0.90, while separating them remained below 0.85, meeting Henseler's criteria.
3. In addition, my suggestion to include control variables has not been followed.
added but not significant
4. Methodology.
The methodological part was ordered.
5. FACTORIAL LOADINGS AND BIRD : Translation error when translating: AVE . in Spanish ave is pajaro. already corrected.
6. incomplete regressions.
completed with more columns
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
