Why Not STEM? A Study Case on the Influence of Gender Factors on Students’ Higher Education Choice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract needs improvement. The methodology used must be incorporated. Also the sample used and the most important results of the investigation.
Authors should investigate studies carried out in other countries and compare them with the results obtained.
Line 31 and 36. More current data is required.
Line 51. I suggest that the authors mention the activities carried out by the universities and aimed at K12 students.
Authors should incorporate studies in which girls are beginning to be clear about the choice of their studies.
Line 91. This manuscript lacks hypotheses or research questions.
Line 95 to 104. Ask yourself if this paragraph is necessary?
Line 105. This section should be called 1.2. A section of the introduction.
Authors must define who is the target audience for this research and who will benefit.
Regarding to the Methodology. Line 209. Questions from this survey have been validated?
This research lacks a description of the methodology used (Type of study, type of survey, population, confidence interval, sampling error, survey period, sample process, data collection, data analysis instruments…)
Line 287. Clarify that the survey is in Spanish language.
Table 3. The authors talk about Odds ratios (OR) and confidence interval but it is not previously defined and its role within the research. Same as statistical significance. Authors should explain.
The results must be supported by the methodology. Must be improved.
The discussion is poor. It is the most important part of a manuscript. The results should be discussed in this section. The discussion must support or refute the postulates of the introduction.
Research questions or hypotheses must be answered.
It recommended to add conclusions.
Bibliographic references are scarce. Some need to be updated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In this paper, the authors aimed to investigate the factors affecting women studying STEM degrees. The topic is interesting and the study is generally well conducted.
I intend to recommend this paper for publication. Before that, some minor revisions are needed:
- The writing of this paper can be improved by having it proofread by a colleague professional proofreader who is experienced in writing or editing academic articles.
- Although STEM is a popular term, the authors still need to define it in the beginning of the Introduction section.
- The research background can be enhanced by stating more related to the importance of STEM or interdisciplinary education by referring to the literature before claiming that female students are less interested in STEM. Please consider referring to the position paper “Hwang, G. J., Li, K. C., & Lai, C. L. (2020). Trends and strategies for conducting effective STEM research and applications: A mobile and ubiquitous learning perspective. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 14(2), 161-183” in this regard.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors study the factors that influence women/men in their choice of degree. An emphasis is put on STEM subjects and the under-representation of women in those.
The paper is riddled with imprecise statements and downright false claims.
The first sentence of their abstract is in contradiction with the census bureau for instance (see the reviewed pdf). Also, the authors should explain how the results of this paper (https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719) are congruent or not with their approach/conclusions. At best, their analysis is incomplete.
I put some comments on the pdf directly.
My recommendation is to reject the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
-
Reviewer 3 Report
I won't comment any further.
