Review Reports - The Influence of Gender and Institution on the Construction of an Intercultural and Inclusive Music Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Your study makes a valuable contribution to the field of intercultural and inclusive music education by examining the influence of gender and institutional context on students’ perceptions in Andalusia, Ceuta, and Melilla. The theoretical framework is well-grounded, the methodology is rigorous, and the results are clearly presented with appropriate statistical analyses. The discussion successfully links empirical findings with existing scholarship and highlights meaningful implications for inclusive pedagogy.

To further strengthen the manuscript, I recommend the following:

Critical Reflection: Provide a deeper reflection on the limitations of the study, such as its regional scope, reliance on self-reported measures, and the potential cultural bias of instruments.
Clarity in Results: Consider summarizing complex statistical data more narratively in the text so that readers who are less familiar with quantitative methods can follow the findings more easily.
Broader Implications: Expand on how the findings could inform educational policy and teacher training beyond the Spanish context, thereby increasing the international relevance of the paper.
Future Research: The suggestions for further study are strong; you could emphasize how such work could build cross-cultural comparisons and support curriculum development internationally.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language is generally clear and professional; however, in several sections. Minor improvements in sentence structure, conciseness, and flow would enhance clarity and accessibility for an international readership.

Author Response

Research article

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below you will find the detailed responses, as well as the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in green to facilitate the visualization of the changes made in the article.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Your study makes a valuable contribution to the field of intercultural and inclusive music education by examining the influence of gender and institutional context on students’ perceptions in Andalusia, Ceuta, and Melilla. The theoretical framework is well-grounded, the methodology is rigorous, and the results are clearly presented with appropriate statistical analyses. The discussion successfully links empirical findings with existing scholarship and highlights meaningful implications for inclusive pedagogy.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your words and your positive assessment of our work. We are pleased to know that you consider the theoretical framework, methodology, results and discussion to be a rigorous contribution to the field of intercultural and inclusive music education. Your recognition encourages us to continue exploring this line of research and to keep working towards a more inclusive and equitable pedagogy.

Comments 2: To further strengthen the manuscript, I recommend the following:
Critical Reflection: Provide a deeper reflection on the limitations of the study, such as its regional scope, reliance on self-reported measures, and the potential cultural bias of instruments.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your valuable recommendations to enrich our work. We have incorporated a specific section on limitations in the manuscript (lines 571–604), where we critically reflect on aspects such as the regional scope of the study, the reliance on self-reported measures, and the possible cultural bias of the instruments used. We believe that this addition strengthens the discussion and provides greater transparency to the results.

Comments 3: Clarity in Results: Consider summarizing complex statistical data more narratively in the text so that readers who are less familiar with quantitative methods can follow the findings more easily.

Response 3: We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion regarding the clarity of the Results section. Following this recommendation, we revised lines 306–466 to present the statistical findings in a more narrative and accessible manner. Complex statistical values are now accompanied by clear explanations of their meaning and implications, ensuring that readers less familiar with quantitative methods can more easily follow the results. We believe these revisions improve
readability while maintaining methodological rigor.

Comments 4: Broader Implications: Expand on how the findings could inform educational policy and teacher training beyond the Spanish context, thereby increasing the international relevance of the paper.

Response 4: We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment on broadening the implications of our findings. In response, we have expanded the discussion in the Conclusions section (lines 544–549, paragraph 4) to highlight how the results may inform educational policy and teacher training beyond the Spanish context, thereby enhancing the paper’s international relevance. Additionally, we have reinforced this perspective in the Limitations and Future Directions section (lines 581–588, paragraph 2), where we emphasize the need for comparative studies in diverse educational systems to further examine the transferability of these findings.

Comments 5: Future Research: The suggestions for further study are strong; you could emphasize how such work could build cross-cultural comparisons and support curriculum development internationally.

Response 5: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In line with the recommendation, we have revised the Limitations and Future Directions section (lines 580–601, paragraph 2, 3) to emphasize how future research could foster intercultural comparisons and contribute to curriculum development at the international level. These additions strengthen the global scope of our study and highlight its potential relevance beyond the immediate context.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English language is generally clear and professional; however, in several sections. Minor improvements in sentence structure, conciseness, and flow would enhance clarity and accessibility for an international readership.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. Following the recommendation, we have carefully revised the English throughout the entire manuscript to improve sentence structure, conciseness, and overall flow. These changes enhance clarity and accessibility for an international readership while maintaining the academic rigor of the text.

5. Additional clarifications

We sincerely thank the reviewers for all their improvement suggestions, which have been carefully addressed and implemented in order to enhance the overall quality of the article and strengthen its academic contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents the perceptions of inclusion and interculturalism of N = 645 music education students according to their gender identity, the type of institution they attend, and whether they have previous experience in conservatories or schools. It presents a study of the art, methodology, and results in accordance with a scientific article. Minor improvements are recommended in the discussion and conclusions section.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review article

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below you will find the detailed responses, as well as the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in green to facilitate the visualization of the changes made in the article.

Comments 1: This article shows the perceptions of inclusion and interculturalism of N= 645 music education students according to their gender identity, the type of institution they attend, and whether they have previous experience in conservatories or schools. The main contribution of this article lies in the importance of including the gender perspective in the design of inclusive and intercultural education programmes. As for the methodology and the instrument used to collect this information are relevant and consistent with the stated objective. A rigorous process of information analysis has been carried out, leading to significant results that are consistent with those obtained in previous studies.

Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive assessment of our work. We appreciate the recognition of the study’s contributions, methodological rigor, and consistency of the results with previous research. These encouraging comments reinforce the value of our work and motivate us to continue deepening this line of research.

Comments 2: Article: highlighting areas of weakness, the testability of the hypothesis, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
The study follows a scientific research structure, presents a state-of-the-art review with up-to-date bibliographical references, key concepts are adequately developed, there is a clear research objective, and a rigorous methodological process consistent with the objectives is developed. However, as weaknesses, I would point out a somewhat superficial discussion in that it corroborates the results obtained but presents a limited critical perspective on the results derived from the gender analysis, with only a single paragraph alluding to the possibility of reproducing stereotypes. In this sense, it seems that this is a study that includes gender as a sociodemographic variable but not the gender perspective as a conceptual and analytical tool. The introduction also mentions Eurocentrism, but the decolonial perspective as such is not developed or included in the discussion.

Response 2: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the constructive observations regarding the weaknesses identified in the discussion, particularly with respect to gender analysis and the decolonial perspective. In response, we have revised and expanded the Discussion section (lines 479–527, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) to provide a more critical reflection on the results, moving beyond a merely descriptive interpretation. In this revised version, gender is addressed not only as a sociodemographic variable but also as a conceptual and analytical tool to interpret the findings. Furthermore, the decolonial perspective has been incorporated into the discussion, building on the earlier mention of Eurocentrism in the introduction, in order to enrich the analysis and strengthen the critical dimension of the study.
We believe that these revisions substantially enhance the depth and rigor of the discussion, fully aligning with the reviewer’s valuable recommendations.

Comments 3: Finally, the conclusions can be improved. It is recommended that the conclusions include the most important findings in a concise manner that directly responds to the objective set out in the study in such a way that it is clearly distinguished from the discussion section.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for this valuable recommendation. In response, the Conclusions section has been thoroughly revised between lines 528–570. The updated version now presents the most important findings in a more concise manner, directly addressing the study’s objectives. Furthermore, the section has been restructured to ensure a clear distinction from the discussion, thereby improving the overall clarity and coherence of the manuscript.

Comments 4: As for the format, the use of APA style in the titles of figures and tables should be reviewed, as some errors have been noted.

Response 4: We thank the reviewer for this observation. Following the recommendation, we have carefully reviewed and corrected the use of APA style in the title’s tables. These adjustments ensure consistency with the required formatting guidelines and improve the overall presentation of the manuscript.

Comments 5: The topic itself is relevant and consistent with the journal's thematic focus. It presents a relevant sample and a correct quantitative analysis of the data, although a mixed analysis would have been more enriching in terms of including the gender perspective in educational research. Likewise, there is a lack of discussion of intersectionality and the inclusion of other variables such as the ethnic and cultural origin of the students, as an important aspect for analysing structures of inequality in perceptions of educational equity and inclusion.

Response 5: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In line with the recommendation, we have revised and expanded the Discussion section (lines 476–524, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5). The updated version incorporates a deeper critical analysis by addressing intersectionality and considering additional variables such as students’ ethnic and cultural backgrounds, in order to better capture the structures of inequality that shape perceptions of equity and inclusion in education. Furthermore, the discussion on gender has been strengthened beyond a descriptive level, providing a richer interpretation of the findings and their relevance for educational research.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is correct and the structure is appropriate, complying with all the sections indicated by the publisher.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment. We appreciate the recognition of the manuscript’s English quality, structure, and adherence to the publisher’s requirements.

5. Additional clarifications

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf