One Size Fits None: Rethinking Bibliometric Indicators for Fairer Assessment and Strategic Research Planning

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The primary question addressed by the research is how factors such as gender, academic discipline, institutional location, and academic rank influence bibliometric outcomes within the Greek higher education system. The study also aims to determine if a unified, national-level evaluation framework is appropriate for assessing research performance across all institutions and disciplines, or if contextualized adjustments are necessary. Furthermore, it examines whether discipline-specific, national-level bibliometric indicators can serve as standards for evaluating individual research performance.

 

The research topic is both original and highly relevant to the field of bibliometrics and research assessment. It addresses a specific gap by focusing on the Greek Higher Education system, a context that is under-researched in this area.

 

The study's conclusions, which argue against a "one-size-fits-all" approach to bibliometric assessment, are strongly supported by the evidence presented in the results section. The paper systematically demonstrates significant disparities in bibliometric indicators across four key contextual factors: academic discipline, gender, location, and academic rank. The conclusions directly affirm that scientific discipline, location, and gender all significantly impact bibliometric outcomes.

 

To enhance the paper, please take into account the following comments,

 

Row 53. The authors state that research depends on several factors, but only cite the scientific discipline, the location of universities, and the academic rank of researchers. However, public and/or private funding as a fundamental variable is missing. I think the authors should include it.

Row 310. Table 2. The authors could enrich this table by adding a row to distinguish between the number of public universities and the number of private universities that participated in the study.

Row 638 onwards. For future research, consider using bibliometric analysis programs, such as VOSviewer, to enrich the analysis performed.

Row 535 onwards. The article concludes that evaluation models must be context sensitive. However, the conclusion could be strengthened by offering more concrete recommendations for policymakers. For example, it could suggest how funding agencies could improve the results shown in Table 7 (row 523) through increased funding.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: metrics-3862597- Responses to Reviewer 1 Comments

First, we would like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and efforts towards improving this manuscript. Below, we highlight our effort to address the general concerns of the reviewers for minor and major amendments. Then, we address comments specific to each reviewer’s points in the table below.

So, in line with their recommendations, we have summarized common amendments undertaken to develop this revised manuscript. All changes have been clearly marked in the text using track changes for easy reference.

 

1. Methodological Clarifications and Enhancements

In response to the reviewers' feedback, we have made several enhancements to clarify and reinforce the methodology. We have expanded the manuscript to include a detailed, multi-step protocol for the manual identification of researcher profiles, which encompasses cross-referencing and independent verification to ensure data reliability and accuracy. We also clarified our rationale for employing both Scopus, known for its curated data, and Google Scholar, which offers broad, representative coverage in the Greek context. This dual approach was essential for constructing a comprehensive national-level dataset. Moreover, we justified our sample refinement process by explaining that the exclusion criteria were not arbitrary but rather a conscious effort to assemble a coherent sample of research-active faculty, removing outliers associated with unique publication models, such as hyper-authorship. Lastly, we specified that the 43% reduction in the sample was particular to the Social Sciences and Humanities field, resulting from systemic database coverage bias against these disciplines, a central theme of our paper.

 

2. Revisions to Figures and Tables

We have made several revisions to enhance the clarity and context of our figures and tables. In response to a reviewer's comment, we clarified that Figure 1 (now Figure 2) is intended to illustrate the emergence of a growing academic conversation rather than to serve as definitive statistical evidence. For Table 1, we provided a precise definition of the term “Years”, specifying it as the researcher's academic age, calculated from their inaugural year of publication. Additionally, in Table 2, we included a clarification that all universities in the sample are public. This reflects the structure of the Greek Higher Education system during the study period, as a private university sector with established research faculty had not yet developed.

 

3. Revisions to Language, Structure, and Style

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have implemented targeted revisions to enhance the overall clarity and precision of the manuscript. We have addressed minor corrections, including a typo on page 1 and an incomplete reference. Additionally, we have refined the data availability statement to provide specific details pertinent to this study. More significantly, we have concretized our recommendations for policymakers and expanded the discussion on the essential role of peer review as a complement to bibliometric analysis. These adjustments ensure that the manuscript is not only methodologically robust but also clear, accurate, and accessible.

 

 

 

4. Limitations and Future Research

We appreciate the reviewers for their valuable suggestions, which have significantly enriched our discussion of the study's limitations and provided more precise guidance for future research. We have explicitly acknowledged that our analysis of the gender gap does not statistically control for academic rank, a crucial confounding variable that needs to be considered. We recommend that future studies employ advanced techniques, such as Oaxaca decomposition, to separate these effects more effectively. Additionally, we recognize that our research lacks a quantitative simulation of the proposed funding framework, which we identify as an essential step for future policy-oriented investigations. Furthermore, we have incorporated the suggestion to utilize visualization tools, such as VOSviewer, to enhance subsequent analyses.

 

5. Terminology Precision & Theoretical Contribution

To enhance the precision of terminology in the paper, we have refined key concepts and strengthened our introductory framework in response to reviewer feedback. We offer a clear definition of "horizontal solutions," emphasizing that these are "one-size-fits-all" policies, and we provide concrete examples to illustrate their potential to create inequities. Most notably, we have introduced a new conceptual framework (Figure 1) that visually represents the dynamic and cyclical relationships among contextual factors (such as discipline and location), mediating mechanisms (including resources and collaboration networks), and research output. This addition establishes a stronger theoretical foundation for our analysis and directly addresses how various variables influence researchers' performance.

 

We thank Reviewer#1 for the careful and insightful review of our manuscript. We address the concerns as follows:

 

Comment	Answer
1.      Row 53. The authors state that research depends on several factors, but only cite the scientific discipline, the location of universities, and the academic rank of researchers. However, public and/or private funding as a fundamental variable is missing. I think the authors should include it.	Thank you for your comment. We agree that funding is a fundamental factor influencing research output. However, the dataset used in this study is based on Scopus and Google Scholar, which does not provide direct information regarding the type or amount of funding. Nevertheless, in future research, we intend to incorporate data from research projects in order to examine the relationship between funding and research performance.
2.      Row 310. Table 2. The authors could enrich this table by adding a row to distinguish between the number of public universities and the number of private universities that participated in the study.	Nice remark but our study sample comprises solely public universities. This focus is attributable to the distinct national context of the Greek higher education system. Private universities in Greece have only recently been established, having been formally recognized for less than a year. Therefore, no relevant data was available for inclusion.
3.      Row 638 onwards. For future research, consider using bibliometric analysis programs, such as VOSviewer, to enrich the analysis performed.	Thank you for your suggestion, we will consider using. We agree that using visualization to present the dataset could offer deeper insights and enrich the analysis. We have now included this point in the conclusion section of the paper as recommended.
4.      Row 535 onwards. The article concludes that evaluation models must be context sensitive. However, the conclusion could be strengthened by offering more concrete recommendations for policymakers. For example, it could suggest how funding agencies could improve the results shown in Table 7 (row 523) through increased funding.	Done. Following your suggestion, we have revised the conclusion to include more concrete recommendations for policy makers. Specifically, we now suggest that national funding policies should be tailored to reflect disciplinary, geographic, and structural disparities, as highlighted in Table 7. The revised paragraph proposes that funding agencies could allocate targeted resources to underperforming or structurally disadvantaged institutions and adjust performance benchmarks according to disciplinary norms, with the goal of promoting research equity [Lines 679-691].

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors show that standard bibliometric indicators do not take specific aspects into account. Among these, the authors consider field, gender, and region, among others. This is illustrated by the case of Greece.

The article does not contain original methods, but that is not a negative point as confirmatory articles must also be known and published.

Some points for consideration:

Peer review is only briefly mentioned at the end of the article.

Using Google Scholar is not really professional. Please add a few lines on why you used Google Scholar besides Scopus (and not Dimensions or OpenAlex).

Figure 1is based on a few data points and does not really prove anything.

How is “Years” defined in Table 1?

Reference 20 is published in the ISSI Newsletter, 2010, 6, 22-28.

Typo: page 1 line 34. It MUST be: Bibliometrics is closely linked

Page 17. The data availability statement is still the one from the template.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: metrics-3862597- Responses to Reviewer 2 Comments

First we would like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and efforts towards improving this manuscript. Below, we highlight our effort to address the general concerns of the reviewers for minor and major amendments. Then, we address comments specific to each reviewer’s points in the table below.

So, in line with their recommendations, we have summarized common amendments undertaken to develop this revised manuscript. All changes have been clearly marked in the text using track changes for easy reference.

1. Methodological Clarifications and Enhancements

In response to the reviewers' feedback, we have made several enhancements to clarify and reinforce the methodology. We have expanded the manuscript to include a detailed, multi-step protocol for the manual identification of researcher profiles, which encompasses cross-referencing and independent verification to ensure data reliability and accuracy. We also clarified our rationale for employing both Scopus, known for its curated data, and Google Scholar, which offers broad, representative coverage in the Greek context. This dual approach was essential for constructing a comprehensive national-level dataset. Moreover, we justified our sample refinement process by explaining that the exclusion criteria were not arbitrary but rather a conscious effort to assemble a coherent sample of research-active faculty, removing outliers associated with unique publication models, such as hyper-authorship. Lastly, we specified that the 43% reduction in the sample was particular to the Social Sciences and Humanities field, resulting from systemic database coverage bias against these disciplines, a central theme of our paper.

 

2. Revisions to Figures and Tables

We have made several revisions to enhance the clarity and context of our figures and tables. In response to a reviewer's comment, we clarified that Figure 1 (now Figure 2) is intended to illustrate the emergence of a growing academic conversation rather than to serve as definitive statistical evidence. For Table 1, we provided a precise definition of the term “Years”, specifying it as the researcher's academic age, calculated from their inaugural year of publication. Additionally, in Table 2, we included a clarification that all universities in the sample are public. This reflects the structure of the Greek Higher Education system during the study period, as a private university sector with established research faculty had not yet developed.

 

3. Revisions to Language, Structure, and Style

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have implemented targeted revisions to enhance the overall clarity and precision of the manuscript. We have addressed minor corrections, including a typo on page 1 and an incomplete reference. Additionally, we have refined the data availability statement to provide specific details pertinent to this study. More significantly, we have concretized our recommendations for policymakers and expanded the discussion on the essential role of peer review as a complement to bibliometric analysis. These adjustments ensure that the manuscript is not only methodologically robust but also clear, accurate, and accessible.

 

4. Limitations and Future Research

We appreciate the reviewers for their valuable suggestions, which have significantly enriched our discussion of the study's limitations and provided more precise guidance for future research. We have explicitly acknowledged that our analysis of the gender gap does not statistically control for academic rank, a crucial confounding variable that needs to be considered. We recommend that future studies employ advanced techniques, such as Oaxaca decomposition, to separate these effects more effectively. Additionally, we recognize that our research lacks a quantitative simulation of the proposed funding framework, which we identify as an essential step for future policy-oriented investigations. Furthermore, we have incorporated the suggestion to utilize visualization tools, such as VOSviewer, to enhance subsequent analyses.

 

5. Terminology Precision & Theoretical Contribution

To enhance the precision of terminology in the paper, we have refined key concepts and strengthened our introductory framework in response to reviewer feedback. We offer a clear definition of "horizontal solutions," emphasizing that these are "one-size-fits-all" policies, and we provide concrete examples to illustrate their potential to create inequities. Most notably, we have introduced a new conceptual framework (Figure 1) that visually represents the dynamic and cyclical relationships among contextual factors (such as discipline and location), mediating mechanisms (including resources and collaboration networks), and research output. This addition establishes a stronger theoretical foundation for our analysis and directly addresses how various variables influence researchers' performance.

 

We thank Reviewer#2 for the careful and insightful review of our manuscript. We address the concerns as follows:

 

Comment	Answer
1.      Peer review is only briefly mentioned at the end of the article.	We agree that peer review plays a fundamental role in research evaluation. To address your comment, we have expanded the discussion at the end of the article to highlight the importance of integrating peer review into research assessment frameworks. In the revised conclusion, we emphasize that bibliometric indicators should complement, not replace, qualitative evaluation methods such as peer review, particularly in disciplines or contexts where quantitative metrics alone may lead to biased or incomplete assessments.
2.      Using Google Scholar is not really professional. Please add a few lines on why you used Google Scholar besides Scopus (and not Dimensions or OpenAlex).	Our approach aimed to leverage the strengths of both platforms to achieve a balance of rigor and representativeness for this national-level study. We selected Scopus as the baseline due to its high-quality, curated data. Additionally, we included Google Scholar, as it is the most widely adopted platform within the Greek academic community; its inclusion was crucial for constructing a comprehensive and representative sample. We chose not to use alternative databases, such as Dimensions or OpenAlex, primarily to avoid a significant reduction in our sample size, considering their lower adoption rates among our target population. The methodology section has been revised to clarify this justification [lines 340-347].
3.      Figure 1is based on a few data points and does not really prove anything.	Figure 1 (now Figure 2) has been revised. We concur that the figure, which is derived from a limited dataset, does not constitute rigorous statistical evidence of a trend. In response, we have revised the accompanying text to delineate the figure's specific purpose more clearly. The revised text explicitly characterizes the figure as an "illustrative example" founded on an "intentionally narrow" dataset. Furthermore, we emphasize that its intent is not to deliver a comprehensive statistical analysis, but rather to highlight an emerging dialogue surrounding the topic at hand. We believe that this reframing effectively clarifies the figure's supportive role in our argument and adequately addresses your concerns.
4.      How is “Years” defined in Table 1?	Revised. The description in Table 1 now specifies that: “By the term Years we define the academic age of the researcher, calculated as the current year (2025) minus the year of their first publication, plus one.”
5.      Reference 20 is published in the ISSI Newsletter, 2010, 6, 22-28.	The reference has been corrected.
6.      Typo: page 1 line 34. It MUST be: Bibliometrics is closely linked	Done. Has been revised.
7.      Page 17. The data availability statement is still the one from the template.	Done. Has been revised.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article investigates the impact of gender, discipline, institutional location, and academic rank on research output indicators (based on data from Google Scholar and Scopus) within the Greek higher education system. However, to meet publication requirements, the following revisions are needed:
1. In lines 53–60, the authors list discipline, location, and academic rank, but fail to explain their mechanisms of influence.  They should add a theoretical framework or diagram illustrating how these variables affect research output through research resources, collaboration networks, or incentive mechanisms.
2. The definition of "cross-cutting solutions" is unclear (lines 65–73); the authors need to provide a clear definition.
3. In lines 235–246, the authors mention manually identifying scholar IDs, a process prone to errors. Therefore, please provide detailed identification rules, review procedures, and inter-rater reliability assessments to ensure data reliability.
4. In lines 247–286, the 43% sample reduction may introduce selection bias. Please compare the characteristics (discipline, rank, geographical distribution, etc.) of the excluded and retained samples and conduct a sensitivity analysis for missing data.
5. The authors' outlier removal criteria seem arbitrary (lines 296–301). Please report the differences in results before and after outlier removal and consider using logarithmic transformation or robust regression instead of direct removal to reduce subjectivity.
6. The authors only conducted descriptive analysis for the differences in coverage between GS and Scopus. Please provide a paired scatter plot or regression analysis to test for systematic bias.
7. The authors did not control for academic rank in their gender gap analysis. Please conduct stratified regression or Oaxaca decomposition to distinguish the contributions of academic rank and discipline to the gender gap.
8. The current policy recommendations lack quantitative analysis. The authors could simulate a percentile-based funding redistribution to quantify the benefits or losses for different institutions.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: metrics-3862597- Responses to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

First, we would like to thank all the reviewers for their insightful comments and efforts towards improving this manuscript. Below, we highlight our effort to address the general concerns of the reviewers for minor and major amendments. Then, we address comments specific to each reviewer’s points in the table below.

So, in line with their recommendations, we have summarized common amendments undertaken to develop this revised manuscript. All changes have been clearly marked in the text using track changes for easy reference.

 

1. Methodological Clarifications and Enhancements

In response to the reviewers' feedback, we have made several enhancements to clarify and reinforce the methodology. We have expanded the manuscript to include a detailed, multi-step protocol for the manual identification of researcher profiles, which encompasses cross-referencing and independent verification to ensure data reliability and accuracy. We also clarified our rationale for employing both Scopus, known for its curated data, and Google Scholar, which offers broad, representative coverage in the Greek context. This dual approach was essential for constructing a comprehensive national-level dataset. Moreover, we justified our sample refinement process by explaining that the exclusion criteria were not arbitrary but rather a conscious effort to assemble a coherent sample of research-active faculty, removing outliers associated with unique publication models, such as hyper-authorship. Lastly, we specified that the 43% reduction in the sample was particular to the Social Sciences and Humanities field, resulting from systemic database coverage bias against these disciplines, a central theme of our paper.

 

2. Revisions to Figures and Tables

We have made several revisions to enhance the clarity and context of our figures and tables. In response to a reviewer's comment, we clarified that Figure 1 (now Figure 2) is intended to illustrate the emergence of a growing academic conversation rather than to serve as definitive statistical evidence. For Table 1, we provided a precise definition of the term “Years”, specifying it as the researcher's academic age, calculated from their inaugural year of publication. Additionally, in Table 2, we included a clarification that all universities in the sample are public. This reflects the structure of the Greek Higher Education system during the study period, as a private university sector with established research faculty had not yet developed.

 

3. Revisions to Language, Structure, and Style

In response to the reviewers' comments, we have implemented targeted revisions to enhance the overall clarity and precision of the manuscript. We have addressed minor corrections, including a typo on page 1 and an incomplete reference. Additionally, we have refined the data availability statement to provide specific details pertinent to this study. More significantly, we have concretized our recommendations for policymakers and expanded the discussion on the essential role of peer review as a complement to bibliometric analysis. These adjustments ensure that the manuscript is not only methodologically robust but also clear, accurate, and accessible.

 

4. Limitations and Future Research

We appreciate the reviewers for their valuable suggestions, which have significantly enriched our discussion of the study's limitations and provided more precise guidance for future research. We have explicitly acknowledged that our analysis of the gender gap does not statistically control for academic rank, a crucial confounding variable that needs to be considered. We recommend that future studies employ advanced techniques, such as Oaxaca decomposition, to separate these effects more effectively. Additionally, we recognize that our research lacks a quantitative simulation of the proposed funding framework, which we identify as an essential step for future policy-oriented investigations. Furthermore, we have incorporated the suggestion to utilize visualization tools, such as VOSviewer, to enhance subsequent analyses.

 

5. Terminology Precision & Theoretical Contribution

To enhance the precision of terminology in the paper, we have refined key concepts and strengthened our introductory framework in response to reviewer feedback. We offer a clear definition of "horizontal solutions," emphasizing that these are "one-size-fits-all" policies, and we provide concrete examples to illustrate their potential to create inequities. Most notably, we have introduced a new conceptual framework (Figure 1) that visually represents the dynamic and cyclical relationships among contextual factors (such as discipline and location), mediating mechanisms (including resources and collaboration networks), and research output. This addition establishes a stronger theoretical foundation for our analysis and directly addresses how various variables influence researchers' performance.

 

We thank Reviewer#3 for the careful and insightful review of our manuscript. We address the concerns as follows:

 

Comment	Answer
1.      In lines 53–60, the authors list discipline, location, and academic rank, but fail to explain their mechanisms of influence.  They should add a theoretical framework or diagram illustrating how these variables affect research output through research resources, collaboration networks, or incentive mechanisms.	We appreciate this suggestion and have made revisions to the introduction to clarify how factors such as discipline, location, and rank influence research output through specific mechanisms like resource access and collaboration networks. Additionally, as you recommended, we have introduced a new conceptual framework (Figure 1) to represent these dynamic and cyclical relationships visually. We believe these revisions effectively address your comment and significantly enhance the paper’s theoretical foundation.
2.      The definition of "cross-cutting solutions" is unclear (lines 65–73); the authors need to provide a clear definition.	Yes, it has been revised. In response to this unclear point, we have refined the paragraph to establish a clear definition, stating that these are "policies that apply a uniform standard across all researchers, overlooking essential contextual differences." To enhance the clarity of this concept, we have also included specific examples, such as "demanding the same number of publications for promotion in both the humanities and computer science" or allocating funds based on "raw citation counts without accounting for significant disciplinary variations."
3.      In lines 235–246, the authors mention manually identifying scholar IDs, a process prone to errors. Therefore, please provide detailed identification rules, review procedures, and inter-rater reliability assessments to ensure data reliability.	We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment regarding the importance of methodological rigor. We concur that providing a detailed account of the manual identification process is essential for transparency, and we have thoughtfully expanded the methodology section accordingly (although demanding). The revised text now outlines the multi-step verification protocol we employed to ensure the reliability of our data. This protocol includes the following steps: ·       Cross-referencing each researcher's name, institutional affiliation, and field of study through official university websites, Google Scholar, and Scopus. ·       Conducting an independent assessment of each profile match by a second team member. ·       Resolving any discrepancies through consensus among the authors. We are confident that this comprehensive description enhances the clarity and reliability of our data collection process, effectively addressing the reviewer's concerns.
4.      In lines 247–286, the 43% sample reduction may introduce selection bias. Please compare the characteristics (discipline, rank, geographical distribution, etc.) of the excluded and retained samples and conduct a sensitivity analysis for missing data.	First, we would like to clarify that the 43% sample reduction pertains explicitly to the Economics/Business/SSH field, where database coverage is the lowest. In contrast, the overall sample reduction was significantly lower, at approximately 29%. In response to reviewer's suggestion, we have revised the manuscript to include a more detailed comparison of the excluded and retained samples for this particular group [lines 363-370]. The revised text now makes it clear that the exclusion rates were relatively consistent across various academic ranks, indicating that the absence of a profile is not significantly influenced by seniority. Concerning the request for a sensitivity analysis, we argue that the reason for the missing data is systematic rather than random, arising from the inherent database coverage bias against SSH disciplines, a central thematic of our paper. This issue is not one of random missingness, but rather reflects a disciplinary culture of platform engagement. We have refined our text to better characterize the final SSH sample as representative of "SSH researchers who are active on these specific platforms." We believe these clarifications and the additional analysis directly address the reviewer’s concerns regarding selection bias.
5.      The authors' outlier removal criteria seem arbitrary (lines 296–301). Please report the differences in results before and after outlier removal and consider using logarithmic transformation or robust regression instead of direct removal to reduce subjectivity.	Thanks for this and the opportunity to clarify the rationale behind our sample refinement process. In response to the suggestion to utilize logarithmic transformation or robust regression, we contend that these methods are not suitable for the primary descriptive and benchmarking objectives of our study. Our goal is to provide policymakers and administrators with clear, interpretable data on real-world performance. Transforming the data would obscure these practical values and diminish the utility of our proposed benchmarking framework. Our exclusion criteria were not arbitrary; instead, they were a deliberate effort to establish a coherent and comparable sample of research-active faculty. The lower thresholds (fewer than five papers or 10 citations) were implemented as a pragmatic means to filter out profiles that appeared inactive or incomplete, ensuring our analysis accurately reflects the productivity of typical research-active academics. The upper threshold (>800 papers) was essential for maintaining the homogeneity of the sample. As noted in the manuscript, this threshold primarily impacted six researchers affiliated with large-scale physics collaborations (such as CERN), whose publication model, characterized by "hyper-authorship", is distinct from that of the broader academic community. In alignment with your request to report on the impact of this exclusion, the paper already highlights the significant and distorting effect these specific outliers have on our analysis. We state, "These six profiles alone accounted for 925,790 citations, while the remaining 2,134 profiles accumulated a total of 6,943,066 citations." This finding strongly justifies their exclusion, as their inclusion would have invalidated any meaningful comparison or benchmarking for the entire discipline. In any case, we revised the paper [lines 330-340 now] to state this rationale more clearly.
6.      The authors only conducted descriptive analysis for the differences in coverage between GS and Scopus. Please provide a paired scatter plot or regression analysis to test for systematic bias.	We appreciate the suggestion to conduct a more detailed statistical analysis of the relationship between Google Scholar and Scopus data. While paired scatter plots or regression analyses are useful tools for studies focused on the methodological comparison of citation databases, such an in-depth analysis falls outside the primary scope of our paper. Our specific aim in comparing Google Scholar and Scopus is not to model the systematic bias between these platforms, but rather to highlight the significant coverage differences that exist and the crucial, practical implications these differences have for fair evaluation across disciplines. The descriptive analysis presented in Table 5 effectively and adequately accomplishes this objective. The percentage ratios, such as the finding that Scopus captures only 43% of papers and 36% of citations in the social sciences and humanities compared to Google Scholar, convey a clear and impactful message without the need for complex modeling. Incorporating a regression analysis would divert attention from our central arguments regarding disciplinary, regional, and gender inequalities, shifting the focus toward a methodological exploration of citation databases, which is not the intended contribution of this work. We hope the reviewer will find our current approach to be appropriate and sufficient for the specific points we aim to make in this section.
7.      The authors did not control for academic rank in their gender gap analysis. Please conduct stratified regression or Oaxaca decomposition to distinguish the contributions of academic rank and discipline to the gender gap.	Thank for this. Well a sophisticated comment here. We agree that the confounding effect of academic rank is a crucial factor in understanding the gender gap in research productivity. The suggestion to employ stratified regression or Oaxaca decomposition represents the most rigid approach to separating these effects. As we briefly mentioned in our original manuscript, the underrepresentation of women in senior academic positions likely contributes to the overall disparities we observed. However, conducting a comprehensive decomposition analysis would significantly expand the original scope of our study, shifting its focus from a descriptive and benchmarking framework to a more intricate inferential modeling approach. Given the constraints of the current revision, we believe that such an extensive analysis is better suited for a dedicated follow-up study. In any case, to address this important limitation in our current manuscript, we have taken two specific actions: ·       1. We have enhanced the text in the gender inequalities section (4.3) to more explicitly articulate that academic rank is a major confounding variable likely contributing to the observed aggregate gender gap [lines 524-530]. ·       2. We have expanded the Limitations and Future Steps section to explicitly identify this as a limitation and propose that future research utilize the methods suggested by the reviewer (such as stratified analysis or Oaxaca decomposition) to gain a more nuanced understanding of the gender gap. Hope that the reviewer finds this constructive and transparent approach responsive to her/his important critique, as it improves the caveats of the current paper while tracing a clear path for future research.
8.      The current policy recommendations lack quantitative analysis. The authors could simulate a percentile-based funding redistribution to quantify the benefits or losses for different institutions.	A quantitative simulation of a percentile-based funding redistribution could serve as a powerful and significant next step in demonstrating the real-world impact of our proposed framework. However, this is a distinct and substantial follow-up study that exceeds the primary scope of the current paper. The main objective of this work was to diagnose existing inequities within the evaluation system and to develop a conceptually sound alternative framework grounded in bibliometric data. Conducting a conceivable-accurate financial simulation, as suggested, would necessitate access to detailed and often proprietary national funding formulas and institutional budget data, which were not included in our data collection for this bibliometric analysis. Consequently, while we are unable to perform this simulation in the current revision, we have explicitly incorporated the reviewer’s suggestion as a vital direction for future research. We have revised our Discussion and Limitations/Future Steps sections to emphasize that the critical next step is for researchers and policymakers to model the financial and institutional impacts of implementing such a context-sensitive framework. We believe our paper lays the essential groundwork for this future research, and we hope the reviewer agrees that this is a reasonable and constructive approach.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author responded to my questions very well, and I think it is acceptable for publication.