Gender Diversity and Psychosocial Work Risks from a Non-Binary Perspective: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a systematic review of empirical studies on occupational mental health and gender, retrieving 89 studies published between 2010 and 2019. Overall, the quality of the work is good; however, several aspects should be improved before the manuscript can be published. Below is a list of detailed comments.

• In the introduction, at the beginning of Section 2.4, the authors repeat content that is already discussed in Section 2.3 regarding occupational segregation. Relatedly, I believe that RQ2 and RQ3 should be grouped together. Occupational sectors and job roles are structural and, to some extent, socio-cultural factors. Indeed, these aspects are already discussed in Section 2.3. The disproportionate representation of women and men across occupations is a structural characteristic of job sectors that is closely linked to stereotypes and gender roles, which are cultural and contextual factors. It is therefore unclear why these dimensions are treated separately, particularly given that RQ2 is broadly defined and appears to encompass RQ3.
• RQ4 would be conceptually stronger if presented as the first research question, as it provides insights into the theoretical frameworks that are subsequently tested empirically in RQ1–RQ3.
• In the introduction, ideally after presenting the research questions and before the Methods section, the authors should describe previous reviews on the topic and clarify whether and how the present review differs from them. This would help justify the need for a systematic review with this specific aim. Although one review is mentioned in the introduction, the authors later state (line 392) that they focused on the period 2010–2024 to update existing reviews; however, this claim is not referenced.
• The inclusion and exclusion criteria should be more thoroughly discussed and justified in the Methods section. In the current version of the manuscript, these criteria are only reported in a table and briefly mentioned in the text.
• The description of the types of relationships in Table 2 is misleading. It suggests that structural factors are examined exclusively as explanatory variables, whereas occupational sector and job role are treated only as moderators. However, in the Results section, some of the factors analyzed under RQ2 are described as moderators (e.g., line 646), and occupational sector could also be interpreted as an explanatory variable.
• I would recommend moving Tables 3 and 4 to the Appendix, as they are lengthy and interrupt the flow of the manuscript. Instead, a summary table could be included in the main text, reporting key characteristics of the reviewed studies—for example, the percentage of studies using quantitative methods or the proportion including non-binary gender categories. These characteristics are among the extracted factors and are subsequently discussed in the Results section. Additionally, a concise list of the psychosocial factors examined, along with their respective proportions, would be useful.
• The number of records retrieved from the search query appears unexpectedly low, considering that five comprehensive databases were used. This may be due to the way the health-related keywords were defined (“Psychosocial Risks” OR “Occupational Stress” OR “Work-Related Stress” OR “Workplace Mental Health” OR “Occupational Hazards” OR “Burnout” OR “Work–Family Conflict”). This combination is relatively narrow and may not capture the full range of terms – and their combiantion – used to describe psychosocial health issues in titles and abstracts. For example, studies in which stress is mentioned without being preceded by “occupational” or “work-related” (e.g., “we examined the impact on stress in the workplace”) would not be included. Although it is too late to modify the search strategy, this limitation should be acknowledged and discussed in the Limitations section. To justify the findings, the authors could compare the final number of included studies with those reported in other reviews on the same topic.

Minor issues:

• Line 395: the scientific databases are five, not four.
• Line 413: Table 1 indicates that studies could be published in English or Spanish, whereas the text mentions only English as an inclusion criterion.
• Lines 516–517: the statement “Most studies focused on adult working populations, although some included specific subgroups such as public-sector employees, educators, healthcare staff, and service workers” is unclear, as all included studies should concern working populations according to the inclusion criteria.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments provided. We have revised the manuscript substantially in response to these suggestions. In particular, we have clarified the conceptual structure of the research questions, reduced redundancy in the theoretical framework, strengthened the justification of the review’s contribution in relation to previous reviews, expanded and clarified the methodological section, revised the presentation and placement of tables, and addressed several technical and formatting issues. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are indicated in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a systematic review following the PRISMA methodology on how gender interferes with exposure, experiences, and response to psychosocial risks in a context such as the workplace. Without a doubt, it is a topic of interest, current, and relevant at the present time.

To begin with, I believe that the title of this research should be revised, as it is unclear what the systematic review is about. I would suggest something along the lines of Gender Diversity and Psychosocial Work Risks: A Systematic Review.

INTRODUCTION

Although the introduction is comprehensive, it is recommended that the statements made be reinforced with citations from authors and researchers. Recent research and studies should not be discussed without citing them. These statements and similar ones must be supported by evidence, in this case, citations from authors.

It is recommended to explain some concepts related to gender diversity that are taken for granted: trans, cisgender, etc.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Psychosocial risks are discussed and examples are given, but their definition is not clear. Definitions from different authors are not provided.

Points 2.3 and 2.4 do not make sense, given that the central theme is the same. Be careful not to overuse certain citations: Biswas et al., 2021.

The theoretical framework is very extensive. I believe that some subsections could be grouped together and summarised. I recommend removing point 2.6 and concluding the theoretical framework with a brief justification and, if necessary, a summary of the research questions.

METHODOLOGY

Please review the criteria because you indicate that the language is English, yet in Table 1 you refer to articles in English and Spanish.

On page 9, you state that the initial search yielded 192 articles, yet the PRISMA diagram shows 225.

RESULTS

If you claim that many studies focus on traditional sectors... you must indicate how many, because you have already carried out the analysis and you must have that data, or not? 

You must indicate all or almost all of the citations from the articles analysed that support your claims. It is assumed that you have conducted a thorough analysis of the 89 articles for your research.

The use of tables or figures that allow the information to be visualised more clearly is recommended. I believe Table 3 is not correctly positioned.

I believe that Tables 3 and 4 are not necessary in the article; it is recommended that they be added to the database or appendices. It would be more appropriate to include the articles that refer to the results according to the objectives. The tables are very large and make it difficult to follow the main thread of this article.

It is recommended to include the discussion in the results, given that the citations are in the work itself.

Review the purpose of the limitations. If we are interested in current psychosocial factors in order to work on them, and gender diversity is a more recent issue, what is the point of extending the studies to before 2010?

The limitations are those of your research, not of the research carried out and analysed.

APA

Apply APA 7th edition formatting to Figures and Tables.

Review the list of references; information such as DOI, pages, etc. is missing.

 

 

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank the Reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for the constructive and insightful comments provided. We have revised the manuscript substantially in response to these suggestions. In particular, we have clarified the conceptual structure of the research questions, reduced redundancy in the theoretical framework, strengthened the justification of the review’s contribution in relation to previous reviews, expanded and clarified the methodological section, revised the presentation and placement of tables, and addressed several technical and formatting issues. All changes have been incorporated into the revised manuscript and are indicated in the text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all of my suggestions, and I believe the manuscript is now of sufficient quality for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Round 2

The authors have addressed all of my suggestions, and I believe the manuscript is now of sufficient quality for publication.

Authors response: Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate your careful review and your assessment that the revised version is now of sufficient quality for publication. Your feedback has been invaluable in the revision process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
Although the article shows significant improvement in light of the comments made in the first review, it requires further work to ensure it is of sufficient quality for publication.

In the theoretical framework underpinning your research, there is an entire subsection without any reference to other research, which is unacceptable in a scientific article, particularly in this section (subsection 2.2).
Remove the word “e.g.” from the parentheses containing multiple citations in line 199.
Recommendation: on line 366, include the link in parentheses.
Revise the placement of the title of Figure 1 according to APA 7th ed. In this figure, also revise the calculations and the carryover error: 151-47 is not 101.
Recommendation: organise the results or discussion around the research questions posed; it is not clear in these sections what is being answered. The discussion should include citations to the articles analysed that reinforce your arguments.
Why is section 6 so important when the theoretical implications are in a sub-section?
The references used are very well completed, but you need to check the page numbers of some articles. An article cannot have a single page number, e.g. line 809. There are several like this.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Dear authors,

Although the article shows significant improvement in light of the comments made in the first review, it requires further work to ensure it is of sufficient quality for publication.

Authors response: Thank you very much for your careful reading of the revised manuscript and for your constructive suggestions, which have helped to further improve its clarity, structure, and formal consistency.

In the theoretical framework underpinning your research, there is an entire subsection without any reference to other research, which is unacceptable in a scientific article, particularly in this section (subsection 2.2).

Authors response: Many thanks. References have been added to Section 2.2 to explicitly anchor the theoretical frameworks discussed to prior research.

Remove the word “e.g.” from the parentheses containing multiple citations in line 199.

Authors response: Many thanks. Done

Recommendation: on line 366, include the link in parentheses.

Authors response: Many thanks. Done

Revise the placement of the title of Figure 1 according to APA 7th ed. In this figure, also revise the calculations and the carryover error: 151-47 is not 101.

Authors response: Regarding Figure 1, the placement of the figure title has been revised to comply with APA 7th edition guidelines. We have also carefully re-checked the calculations presented in the flow diagram and confirm that the numbers are correct as reported.

Recommendation: organise the results or discussion around the research questions posed; it is not clear in these sections what is being answered. The discussion should include citations to the articles analysed that reinforce your arguments.

Authors response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. To clarify how the research questions are addressed, we have strengthened the Discussion section by making the correspondence between the findings and the three research questions explicit. In particular, a new integrative paragraph has been added at the end of Section 5.2 (Discussion), explicitly summarizing how the results address RQ1, RQ2, and RQ3. This paragraph is located between lines 656 and 667 on page 18 of the revised manuscript. In addition, Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the Discussion have been revised to incorporate explicit references to representative studies included in the review, thereby reinforcing the synthesized arguments with empirical examples drawn from the analyzed literature.

 

Why is section 6 so important when the theoretical implications are in a sub-section?

Authors response: The implications section has been integrated into the Discussion and is now presented as Section 5.4, thereby ensuring consistency in the structure and relative weight of the theoretical and applied contributions.

The references used are very well completed, but you need to check the page numbers of some articles. An article cannot have a single page number, e.g. line 809. There are several like this.

Authors response: Thank you for this observation. We have carefully reviewed the reference list and verified page ranges and article numbers throughout. All entries now consistently follow the journal’s formatting guidelines, including the use of article numbers for journals that do not employ traditional pagination.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Without a doubt, the article presents a great deal of work in terms of revision and adaptation to the recommendations indicated.

Although there are subsections that could be improved, especially in terms of the depth of the data presented, the organisation of the results and the research questions, I consider it publishable in its current state.

However, I recommend that the authors continue their training in research and article writing in order to improve the quality of their work.

The reviewer.