Female Entrepreneurship: Can Cooperatives Contribute to Overcoming the Gender Gap? A Spanish First Step to Equality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, the reviewer congratulates a very high-quality scientific article. The authors' consideration of the following remarks will make the article better.

The subject matter taken up by the authors fits into the character of the magazine "Sustainability". The topic taken up by the authors is relevant, important and current, as well as has strong practical implications. The issues raised by the authors, apart from Social Economy (SE), could also be considered as an element of the emerging trend of research on sharing economy.

Regarding the front matter of the manuscript, the title "the gender gap" appears in the title. In the opinion of the reviewer, this term has not been sufficiently defined, and what is also important, appears again in line no. 386.

The article has the model structure required by the publisher. All the parts in the research manuscript section, i.e. Introductions, Theoretical background, Methodology, Results, Discussion and Conclusions contain the required elements and are characterized by the high quality of presentation. However, the reviewer has a few comments about the content of individual parts of the article:

1. In the "Theoretical background" two subsections (2.1 and 2.2) appear with the same title: "Cooperatives as drivers of entrepreneurship and equality" (line no. 87 and 165). This may be incomprehensible to the reader.
2. In the subsection "Limitations and implications for future research" (line 432 et seq.), the implications are presented firstly, the limitations as secondly. The reverse order is suggested.

The reviewer has no comments concerning the research methodology used and its presentation in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and effort. Please, see the attachment for our detailled response.

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript is well-researched, well-organized and for the most part quite well articulated and written (there are some minor English usage issues). The research has contemporary relevance and significance for an international audience. The study design is thoughtfully executed and displays evidence of rigor in methods.

There are a number of minor fixes that I suggest to strengthen this paper prior to publication. I list them below, followed by a number of suggestions for improvements in the English. I look forward to seeing this paper in print.

1. Authors should do a better job clarifying the difference between business and social entrepreneurs. At least in the American context, entrepreneurship is widely rendered as competitive and individualistic, and thus out of step with the cooperative entrepreneurship described here. If social entrepreneurs display different motivations and characteristics, draw that out further in the manuscript.
2. Authors should add more description of the co-op sector in Spain post 2010, and possibly include a short history of the sector before 2010. We have one table that summarizes the variety of cooperatives in the study but no description of the overall co-op ecosystem, which would be beneficial to readers not familiar with the contemporary Spanish case.
3. Line 201: the authors suddenly claim they are using a post-structuralist feminist approach. This is not explained or elaborated. If this is a key epistempological commitment, it should be elaborated.
4. Section 3.2: description of Delphi method could be further clarified. I was unsure how the method worked (who reads the transcripts of the interviews? Do interviewees trade transcripts from other interviewees, creating a form of dialogue?). Need more elaboration here. Also unsure of how experts were selected to be part of the sample (convenience sampling, purposive sampling, etc).
5. Section 3.3: Totals of Table 2 don’t make sense if they are supposed to be the sum of the columns above. Please clarify how the table works.
6. In the analysis of the data, it looks like the Delphi data has been converted to quantitative measures. Is that accurate? If so, how was it done if Delphi is a qualitative measurement tool? Again, more explanation of the Delphi method is warranted.

Finally, some language suggestions:

1. “Women cooperatives” feels awkward, could be “women-led” or “women-owned.” Same with times where a possessive form would be more appropriate, such as in the abstract “women’s expectations” — there are a number of places where a possessive is warranted.
2. Line 33: pressing instead of pressuring
3. Line 76 and throughout: expectations rather than expectancies
4. Line 146: averse not aversive
5. Line 198: platform? Unclear the usage
6. Line 361: participatory not participative
7. A few other typos (missing words, extra words) throughout 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and effort. Please, see the attachment for our detailled response.

The authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf