Organizational Well-Being of Italian Doctoral Students: Is Academia Sustainable When It Comes to Gender Equality?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is easy to read and flows well. The topic is important due to the increasing mantel health issues experienced by Ph.D. students worldwide. However, there are several major issues that limit the contribution of this study. 

Introduction: 

1. In the fifth paragraph, the authors mentioned some assumptions made by this study. How do these assumptions related to the study? Are these assumptions being tested?

2. Please elaborate on the research gap a little more. 

Hypothesis Development: This section is well-written.  However, this study focuses on examining the mean difference between males and females. Thus, the study is very descriptive with no significant theoretical contributions. 

Method:

1. The dataset used by this study seems to be a cross-sectional dataset collected from different universities. Time and universities are not statistically controlled leading to a significant bias in the results of the T-test. e.g., Compared to males, more portion of female data was collected from a university with a worse organizational environment or during the final week.
2. The two groups (males and females) in the t-test do not equal. The assumption of equal variance may be violated. Please check and report. 
3. Please justify the sample size and the power of the test. 
4. A self-report survey was used to measure perceptions. The practical value of the design is very limited, especially in a cross-gender study due to the potential differences in personality traits.

Discussion and Results: 

1. The results cannot be meaningfully interpreted due to the issues of methodology.
2. Once the methodology issues are addressed, please elaborate on the contributions. 

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for having reviewing our paper. Please find below the responses to the comments of the two reviewers:

Reviewer 1

 

1. The focus on the Italy is interesting, however the paper lacks a more global approach. I recommend adding at least the specifics of Italian academia ad PhD students comparing to European or global perspective and to stress importance of your findings for a global perspective

 

• Thank you for raising this point, we added a paragraph at the end of the introduction section (p. 2) and one paragraph in the conclusion section (p. 9)

1. Parts “Introduction” and “theoretical background and research hypothesis” are well processed, with the clear interconnection to the sustainability. But the results and discussion lack any link to sustainability. How do your results support or how can they contribute to the sustainability of the Italian or global organisational well-being and working place for PhD students?

• Thank you for raising this point, we added a paragraph in the section of discussion to improve the contribute of the paper around the sustainability of Italian Academy.

 

1. The title of the article indicates a focus on the women. However, content of the article is more male-female oriented (modification of the title to “gender” perspective, rather than “women” perspective will be more suitable)

 

• Thank you for this remark, we changed the title accordingly (Organizational Well-being of Italian Doctoral Students: Is Academia sustainable when it comes to gender equality?)

1. The conclusions are rather vague, without a clear relationship to sustainability and how it might be achieved in the Italian or global context

• we added a paragraph in the section of discussion to improve the contribute of the paper around the sustainability of Italian Academy.

1. the citation of sources needs to be adapted to journal standards

• noted and modified

Reviewer 2

 

1. The authors should explain, the manuscript on page 5 states that: “The original version of the tool did not provide a measurement for reliability for this reason, we relied on the further study by Cortese et al. (2019) who conducted confirmatory factor analysis for each scale the questionnaire is composed”. However, Cortese et al. (2019) analyzes only seven factors (lack of discrimination, fairness, career and professional development, job autonomy, organizational goals ’sharing, health and safety at work, and a sense of belonging). The authors of the manuscript operate with 14 factors. Is it correct?  It would be useful to include the used questionnaire in English in supplementary materials so that the reviewer can analyze it.

• Thank you for this suggestion, we changed the dimensions included in the study excluding the items related to not-validated dimensions and we only included the 7 dimensions following Cortese et al. (2019) (pp. 6:7, Measures section). Moreover, we slightly modify hypotheses 6 and 7 (pp. 4, 5) to be consistent with the new validated dimensions used. Specifically, we eliminated the hypothesis about colleagues’ support (H6) and we substituted it with the one about organizational goals sharing (p. 4). Likewise, we modified H7 including the dimension of job autonomy (p. 5). Finally, we deleted the hypothesis (H8) about the whole wellbeing dimension as there are not yet validated scale about it (p.5). We also added a table including the items used for our analyses

2. The terms "Men and women" and "Male and female" are used. It is appropriate to harmonize the terms.

• Following your suggestion, we harmonized all the terms using male and female instead of men and women

Reviewer 3

Introduction: 

1. In the fifth paragraph, the authors mentioned some assumptions made by this study. How do these assumptions related to the study? Are these assumptions being tested?
2. Please elaborate on the research gap a little more. 

Hypothesis Development: This section is well-written.  However, this study focuses on examining the mean difference between males and females. Thus, the study is very descriptive with no significant theoretical contributions. 

 

Method:

1. The dataset used by this study seems to be a cross-sectional dataset collected from different universities. Time and universities are not statistically controlled leading to a significant bias in the results of the T-test. e.g., Compared to males, more portion of female data was collected from a university with a worse organizational environment or during the final week.

 

• Thank you for this remark, we have now changed our analyses and performed ANCOVAs to control for time and universities as you suggested (pp. 6:12, section Data Analysis; Results + Table 2, Table 3).

 

2. The two groups (males and females) in the t-test do not equal. The assumption of equal variance may be violated. Please check and report. 

• As we said in the comment above, we changed the t-test analyses with the ANCOVAs. The assumption of equal variance is fundamental for ANCOVA as well, thus we performed the tests for variances homogeneity as suggested (pp. 6, section Data analysis)

 

 

 

3. Please justify the sample size and the power of the test. 

• We added the power analysis (see p. 5 section Participants and Procedure). We also noticed a mistake in reporting the effective sample size, in fact participants were 121 instead of 119.

 

4. A self-report survey was used to measure perceptions. The practical value of the design is very limited, especially in a cross-gender study due to the potential differences in personality traits.

Discussion and Results: 

1. The results cannot be meaningfully interpreted due to the issues of methodology.

Methodology has been modified following your suggestion so we re-elaborate also the results (pp. 9:10)

2. Once the methodology issues are addressed, please elaborate on the contributions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. The topic of the paper is interesting and very up-to-date.

However, there are several shortcomings in the article that reduce its scientific quality. I made some notes while reading:

• The focus on the Italy is interesting, however the paper lacks a more global approach. I recommend adding at least the specifics of Italian academia ad PhD students comparing to European or global perspective and to stress importance of your findings for a global perspective
• Parts “Introduction” and “theoretical background and research hypothesis” are well processed, with the clear interconnection to the sustainability. But the results and discussion lack any link to sustainability. How do your results support or how can they contribute to the sustainability of the Italian or global organisational well-being and working place for PhD students?
• The title of the article indicates a focus on the women. However, content of the article is more male-female oriented (modification of the title to “gender” perspective, rather than “women” perspective will be more suitable)
• The conclusions are rather vague, without a clear relationship to sustainability and how it might be achieved in the Italian or global context
• the citation of sources needs to be adapted to journal standards

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for having reviewing our paper. Please find below the responses to the comments of the two reviewers:

Reviewer 1

 

1. The focus on the Italy is interesting, however the paper lacks a more global approach. I recommend adding at least the specifics of Italian academia ad PhD students comparing to European or global perspective and to stress importance of your findings for a global perspective

 

• Thank you for raising this point, we added a paragraph at the end of the introduction section (p. 2) and one paragraph in the conclusion section (p. 9)

1. Parts “Introduction” and “theoretical background and research hypothesis” are well processed, with the clear interconnection to the sustainability. But the results and discussion lack any link to sustainability. How do your results support or how can they contribute to the sustainability of the Italian or global organisational well-being and working place for PhD students?

• Thank you for raising this point, we added a paragraph in the section of discussion to improve the contribute of the paper around the sustainability of Italian Academy.

 

1. The title of the article indicates a focus on the women. However, content of the article is more male-female oriented (modification of the title to “gender” perspective, rather than “women” perspective will be more suitable)

 

• Thank you for this remark, we changed the title accordingly (Organizational Well-being of Italian Doctoral Students: Is Academia sustainable when it comes to gender equality?)

1. The conclusions are rather vague, without a clear relationship to sustainability and how it might be achieved in the Italian or global context

• we added a paragraph in the section of discussion to improve the contribute of the paper around the sustainability of Italian Academy.

1. the citation of sources needs to be adapted to journal standards

• noted and modified

Reviewer 2

 

1. The authors should explain, the manuscript on page 5 states that: “The original version of the tool did not provide a measurement for reliability for this reason, we relied on the further study by Cortese et al. (2019) who conducted confirmatory factor analysis for each scale the questionnaire is composed”. However, Cortese et al. (2019) analyzes only seven factors (lack of discrimination, fairness, career and professional development, job autonomy, organizational goals ’sharing, health and safety at work, and a sense of belonging). The authors of the manuscript operate with 14 factors. Is it correct?  It would be useful to include the used questionnaire in English in supplementary materials so that the reviewer can analyze it.

• Thank you for this suggestion, we changed the dimensions included in the study excluding the items related to not-validated dimensions and we only included the 7 dimensions following Cortese et al. (2019) (pp. 6:7, Measures section). Moreover, we slightly modify hypotheses 6 and 7 (pp. 4, 5) to be consistent with the new validated dimensions used. Specifically, we eliminated the hypothesis about colleagues’ support (H6) and we substituted it with the one about organizational goals sharing (p. 4). Likewise, we modified H7 including the dimension of job autonomy (p. 5). Finally, we deleted the hypothesis (H8) about the whole wellbeing dimension as there are not yet validated scale about it (p.5). We also added a table including the items used for our analyses

2. The terms "Men and women" and "Male and female" are used. It is appropriate to harmonize the terms.

• Following your suggestion, we harmonized all the terms using male and female instead of men and women

Reviewer 3

Introduction: 

1. In the fifth paragraph, the authors mentioned some assumptions made by this study. How do these assumptions related to the study? Are these assumptions being tested?
2. Please elaborate on the research gap a little more. 

Hypothesis Development: This section is well-written.  However, this study focuses on examining the mean difference between males and females. Thus, the study is very descriptive with no significant theoretical contributions. 

 

Method:

1. The dataset used by this study seems to be a cross-sectional dataset collected from different universities. Time and universities are not statistically controlled leading to a significant bias in the results of the T-test. e.g., Compared to males, more portion of female data was collected from a university with a worse organizational environment or during the final week.

 

• Thank you for this remark, we have now changed our analyses and performed ANCOVAs to control for time and universities as you suggested (pp. 6:12, section Data Analysis; Results + Table 2, Table 3).

 

2. The two groups (males and females) in the t-test do not equal. The assumption of equal variance may be violated. Please check and report. 

• As we said in the comment above, we changed the t-test analyses with the ANCOVAs. The assumption of equal variance is fundamental for ANCOVA as well, thus we performed the tests for variances homogeneity as suggested (pp. 6, section Data analysis)

 

 

 

3. Please justify the sample size and the power of the test. 

• We added the power analysis (see p. 5 section Participants and Procedure). We also noticed a mistake in reporting the effective sample size, in fact participants were 121 instead of 119.

 

4. A self-report survey was used to measure perceptions. The practical value of the design is very limited, especially in a cross-gender study due to the potential differences in personality traits.

Discussion and Results: 

1. The results cannot be meaningfully interpreted due to the issues of methodology.

Methodology has been modified following your suggestion so we re-elaborate also the results (pp. 9:10)

2. Once the methodology issues are addressed, please elaborate on the contributions.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The authors should explain, the manuscript on page 5 states that: “The original version of the tool did not provide a measurement for reliability for this reason, we relied on the further study by Cortese et al. (2019) who conducted confirmatory factor analysis for each scale the questionnaire is composed”. However, Cortese et al. (2019) analyzes only seven factors (lack of discrimination, fairness, career and professional development, job autonomy, organizational goals ’sharing, health and safety at work, and a sense of belonging). The authors of the manuscript operate with 14 factors. Is it correct?  It would be useful to include the used questionnaire in English in supplementary materials so that the reviewer can analyze it.

The terms "Men and women" and "Male and female" are used. It is appropriate to harmonize the terms.

Author Response

Dear Editor and reviewers,

Thank you for having reviewing our paper. Please find below the responses to the comments of the two reviewers:

Reviewer 1

 

1. The focus on the Italy is interesting, however the paper lacks a more global approach. I recommend adding at least the specifics of Italian academia ad PhD students comparing to European or global perspective and to stress importance of your findings for a global perspective

 

• Thank you for raising this point, we added a paragraph at the end of the introduction section (p. 2) and one paragraph in the conclusion section (p. 9)

1. Parts “Introduction” and “theoretical background and research hypothesis” are well processed, with the clear interconnection to the sustainability. But the results and discussion lack any link to sustainability. How do your results support or how can they contribute to the sustainability of the Italian or global organisational well-being and working place for PhD students?

• Thank you for raising this point, we added a paragraph in the section of discussion to improve the contribute of the paper around the sustainability of Italian Academy.

 

1. The title of the article indicates a focus on the women. However, content of the article is more male-female oriented (modification of the title to “gender” perspective, rather than “women” perspective will be more suitable)

 

• Thank you for this remark, we changed the title accordingly (Organizational Well-being of Italian Doctoral Students: Is Academia sustainable when it comes to gender equality?)

1. The conclusions are rather vague, without a clear relationship to sustainability and how it might be achieved in the Italian or global context

• we added a paragraph in the section of discussion to improve the contribute of the paper around the sustainability of Italian Academy.

1. the citation of sources needs to be adapted to journal standards

• noted and modified

Reviewer 2

 

1. The authors should explain, the manuscript on page 5 states that: “The original version of the tool did not provide a measurement for reliability for this reason, we relied on the further study by Cortese et al. (2019) who conducted confirmatory factor analysis for each scale the questionnaire is composed”. However, Cortese et al. (2019) analyzes only seven factors (lack of discrimination, fairness, career and professional development, job autonomy, organizational goals ’sharing, health and safety at work, and a sense of belonging). The authors of the manuscript operate with 14 factors. Is it correct?  It would be useful to include the used questionnaire in English in supplementary materials so that the reviewer can analyze it.

• Thank you for this suggestion, we changed the dimensions included in the study excluding the items related to not-validated dimensions and we only included the 7 dimensions following Cortese et al. (2019) (pp. 6:7, Measures section). Moreover, we slightly modify hypotheses 6 and 7 (pp. 4, 5) to be consistent with the new validated dimensions used. Specifically, we eliminated the hypothesis about colleagues’ support (H6) and we substituted it with the one about organizational goals sharing (p. 4). Likewise, we modified H7 including the dimension of job autonomy (p. 5). Finally, we deleted the hypothesis (H8) about the whole wellbeing dimension as there are not yet validated scale about it (p.5). We also added a table including the items used for our analyses

2. The terms "Men and women" and "Male and female" are used. It is appropriate to harmonize the terms.

• Following your suggestion, we harmonized all the terms using male and female instead of men and women

Reviewer 3

Introduction: 

1. In the fifth paragraph, the authors mentioned some assumptions made by this study. How do these assumptions related to the study? Are these assumptions being tested?
2. Please elaborate on the research gap a little more. 

Hypothesis Development: This section is well-written.  However, this study focuses on examining the mean difference between males and females. Thus, the study is very descriptive with no significant theoretical contributions. 

 

Method:

1. The dataset used by this study seems to be a cross-sectional dataset collected from different universities. Time and universities are not statistically controlled leading to a significant bias in the results of the T-test. e.g., Compared to males, more portion of female data was collected from a university with a worse organizational environment or during the final week.

 

• Thank you for this remark, we have now changed our analyses and performed ANCOVAs to control for time and universities as you suggested (pp. 6:12, section Data Analysis; Results + Table 2, Table 3).

 

2. The two groups (males and females) in the t-test do not equal. The assumption of equal variance may be violated. Please check and report. 

• As we said in the comment above, we changed the t-test analyses with the ANCOVAs. The assumption of equal variance is fundamental for ANCOVA as well, thus we performed the tests for variances homogeneity as suggested (pp. 6, section Data analysis)

 

 

 

3. Please justify the sample size and the power of the test. 

• We added the power analysis (see p. 5 section Participants and Procedure). We also noticed a mistake in reporting the effective sample size, in fact participants were 121 instead of 119.

 

4. A self-report survey was used to measure perceptions. The practical value of the design is very limited, especially in a cross-gender study due to the potential differences in personality traits.

Discussion and Results: 

1. The results cannot be meaningfully interpreted due to the issues of methodology.

Methodology has been modified following your suggestion so we re-elaborate also the results (pp. 9:10)

2. Once the methodology issues are addressed, please elaborate on the contributions.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I want to thank the authors for their effort in revising the manuscript. The revised paper is much improved. The authors addressed all my suggestions. Well done.