Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study

Factors affecting women scientists’ retention... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539" }, "headline": "Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A...", "datePublished": "2024-12-20T10:57:28", "dateModified": "2026-01-21T08:30:18", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Azhar T. Rahma" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Javaid Nauman" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Alia Albawardi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Hajer Alyammahi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Rim Fares" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Payaswini Saikia" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Aminu S. Abdullahi" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Abubaker Suliman" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Linda Zou" }, { "@type": "Person", "name": "Saeeda Almarzooqi" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": " Background The representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is disproportionate to graduates from STEM fields. There is limited research addressing challenges facing women retention in STEM in the UAE. Methods A cross-sectional study using a validated questionnaire was conducted. A total of 165 participants were enrolled; 62% males and 35% females. Results More women believed there is gender inequality in STEM (47% versus 28%). 44% of female participants experienced gender inequality in their career. Men were significantly less likely to experience gender inequality (OR=0.06, 95% CI=0.02-0.16). Women reported lack of organizational emphasis on diversity and inclusion for promotion to leadership (44% versus 60%). Conclusion Data confirms gender-based preconceptions and biases in STEM fields. Institutional initiatives and policies to challenge stereotypes and promote gender equality are required. Governmental role is crucial in creating an inclusive environment for women scientists. " } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1", "name": "Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM..." } } ] } Home Browse Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article T. Rahma A, Nauman J, Albawardi A et al. Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] Azhar T. Rahma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8347-453X 1 , Javaid Nauman 1,2 , Alia Albawardi 3 , [...] Hajer Alyammahi 4 , Rim Fares https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3301-341X 5 , Payaswini Saikia 6 , Aminu S. Abdullahi 1 , Abubaker Suliman 1 , Linda Zou 4 , Saeeda Almarzooqi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5147-0657 3 Azhar T. Rahma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8347-453X 1 , Javaid Nauman 1,2 , [...] Alia Albawardi 3 , Hajer Alyammahi 4 , Rim Fares https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3301-341X 5 , Payaswini Saikia 6 , Aminu S. Abdullahi 1 , Abubaker Suliman 1 , Linda Zou 4 , Saeeda Almarzooqi https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5147-0657 3 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 Author details Author details 1 Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, 15551, United Arab Emirates 2 Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway 3 Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 4 Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 5 Department of Physics, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, 15551, United Arab Emirates 6 Center for Astrophysics and Space Science, New York University, Abu Dhabi, 129188, United Arab Emirates Azhar T. Rahma Roles: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Javaid Nauman Roles: Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Alia Albawardi Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Hajer Alyammahi Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Rim Fares Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Payaswini Saikia Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Aminu S. Abdullahi Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing Abubaker Suliman Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing Linda Zou Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Saeeda Almarzooqi Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Background The representation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is disproportionate to graduates from STEM fields. There is limited research addressing challenges facing women retention in STEM in the UAE. Methods A cross-sectional study using a validated questionnaire was conducted. A total of 165 participants were enrolled; 62% males and 35% females. Results More women believed there is gender inequality in STEM (47% versus 28%). 44% of female participants experienced gender inequality in their career. Men were significantly less likely to experience gender inequality (OR=0.06, 95% CI=0.02-0.16). Women reported lack of organizational emphasis on diversity and inclusion for promotion to leadership (44% versus 60%). Conclusion Data confirms gender-based preconceptions and biases in STEM fields. Institutional initiatives and policies to challenge stereotypes and promote gender equality are required. Governmental role is crucial in creating an inclusive environment for women scientists. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords STEM, women retension, scientists in STEM, gender, retention, qualitative research, professional practice, attrition, inclusive and engaging environments, induction and retention Corresponding Author(s) Saeeda Almarzooqi ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Saeeda Almarzooqi Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2024 T. Rahma A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: T. Rahma A, Nauman J, Albawardi A et al. Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.1 ) First published: 20 Dec 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.1 ) Latest published: 21 Jan 2026, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.3 )  There is a newer version of this article available. Suppress this message for one day. Introduction The representation of women working in professions related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is disproportionate to the percentages of those graduating from STEM fields. Worldwide, multiple studies documented an increase in the number of women receiving postgraduate degrees but a relatively static representation of women in faculty positions in STEM fields ( Casad et al. 2022 ; Roper 2019 ). The World Economic Forum reports a persistent gender gap in STEM fields; for example, women graduate in information and communication technology represent 1.7% compared to 8.2% of men graduates. Similarly, women represent only 6.6% of engineering and manufacturing graduates compared to 24.6% for men ( “World Economic Forum” 2022 ). A study from MIT published in 1999 showed that senior women faculty felt discrimination in salary, awards and resources in spite of the same qualification and competency. Subsequently, the MIT initiated recommendations to increase representations of women in STEM. Despite their efforts, the increase in recruitments were not sustainable after few years ( Lawler 2006 ). Women in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) constitute around 2/3 of students enrolled at federal higher education institutions and around half at private institutions ( “UAE GBC Women Facts” 2022 ). Furthermore, women represent 41.49% of STEM field graduates in the UAE ( “World Economic Forum” 2022 ). However, representations in the workforce is still disproportionate ( Patterson, Varadarajan, and Salim 2021 ). Employment rate is lower for women in comparison to men in computer information sciences and engineering according to a study looking at graduates in 2015-16 at higher colleges of technology and the UAE university ( Houjeir et al. 2019 ). The disparity is postulated to be related to gender stereotyping impacting recruitment and career advancement, limited social networks and existing work climates in academia ( Casad et al. 2022 ). It was also shown that social exclusion from men dominated fields resulted in fewer career opportunities for women ( Cyr et al. 2021 ). In the UAE, similar social and gender factors play a role in the lower representation of women in workforce in STEM fields ( Houjeir et al. 2019 ). Two recent review articles addressing women in STEM in the UAE highlighted some of the challenges in the field (6 and 9). In one review, it was shown that male-dominance in fields like engineering and difficulty in having a clear promotion track resulted in women to leave engineering and pursuing other fields of work ( Alzaabi, Ramirez-Garcia, and Moyano 2021 ). Social factors and family demand on women in addition to some societal gender-biases are attributable to lower number of women working in STEM ( Patterson, Varadarajan, and Salim 2021 ). In the US, the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) supported grants to investigate gender disparity in STEM careers. One notable initiative is the NSF-funded ADVANCE interventions ( Casad et al. 2022 ). It included interventions to enhance recruitment of women in STEM, improve academic climate and develop mentoring and networking ( Casad et al. 2022 ). Higher education institutions can benefit from the evidence based research work and the proposed StratEGIC Toolkit developed by some investigators to enhance women representation in STEM. Using this toolkit, institutions can implement structural changes that support women’s advancement in STEM fields based on evidence-based guidelines ( Laursen and Austin 2014 ). In a recent study, investigators used comics and text-only tweets to increase awareness about underrepresentation and stereotypical biases about women in STEM ( Freedman et al. 2022 ). In the UAE, multiple government initiatives are in place to encourage students to enroll to STEM fields. However, there is limited research looking into challenges facing women working in STEM fields in the UAE ( Patterson, Varadarajan, and Salim 2021 ). In the current study, we aim at exploring these challenges to better understand the current situation. This will help in providing recommendations that allow better retention of women in STEM fields. Methods To achieve the aim of this research, a cross-sectional study design was adopted. A validated questionnaire was used to explore and assess the factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE ( Rentsch and Steel 1992 ; “ Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Annual Report 2019–20” ; Hopkins 2002 ). The questionnaire (consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1) was divided into three sections: demographic, attitudes questions, and the Andrews and Withey job satisfaction questionnaire. The questionnaire was piloted from August-September 2022 and Cronbach alpha had been calculated and questions with low score (less than 0.7) were removed. Study population The study included men and women aged 18 years or older who were graduating or working in STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in the UAE. Sample size calculation To determine the sample size, the WHO calculator for cross-sectional studies was used with the following variables: Level of Confidence Measure: 1.96 (for 95% confidence level) Margin of Error (MOE): 0.05 Baseline levels of the indicators: 0.5 Design effect (Deff ): 1 Expected Response Rate: 0.8 Sampling The sampling frame was from academia and research institutions in the UAE, as well as institutions with STEM fields like hospitals, government entities, and schools. All the mentioned locations were contacted, and participants were asked to sign a consent form before taking the survey. Snowball sampling was also used to distribute the survey via social media (WhatsApp groups). The distribution period was from November 2022 till July 2023. Outcome and exposure variables The main outcome studied was “Factors Affecting Women Scientists’ Retention and Progress in STEM fields in the UAE.” The studied exposure variables included age, gender, marital status, nationality, education level, employment status, and family structure. Measurements and Analysis R software version 4.1.2. ( Chen et al. 2023 ) was used to analyze the data. Variables were summarized and presented as frequencies and percentages. Univariate and multivariable binary logistic regression were used to explore the association between selected demographic factors – including age, gender, education level, and employer – with experience of gender inequality. Adjustments in the regression models were made for all independent variables to address potential confounding. Crude (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals were reported. Results Participants’ characteristics A total of 165 participants (comprising 15% UAE nationals) took part in the survey with majority being males (62%). Most of the participants were between the age of 40-49 years (35%) ( Table 1 ). The majority (77%) were married with more than half (53%) of the participants reporting having 1-3 children under the age of 18. Most of the respondents had a doctorate (76%), were employed (92%), work in academic establishments (78%), and/or had more than 20 years of work experience (44%). Finally, 82% of the participants claimed to be the main bread-earners of their respective families. Table 1. Characteristics of participants (N=165). Characteristic All, N (%) Females, N (%) Males, N (%) Gender Female 62 (38%) - - Male 103 (62%) - - Age 20-29 years old 8 (4.8%) 8 (13%) 0 (0%) 30-39 years old 37 (22%) 18 (29%) 19 (18%) 40-49 years old 57 (35%) 24 (39%) 33 (32%) 50-59 years old 39 (24%) 10 (16%) 29 (28%) 60-64 years old 9 (5.5%) 1 (1.6%) 8 (7.8%) > 65 years old 15 (9.1%) 1 (1.6%) 14 (14%) Marital status Married 127 (77%) 31 (50%) 96 (93%) Unmarried 38 (23%) 32 (50%) 7 (7%) Highest education Bachelor’s degree 10 (6.1%) 8 (13%) 2 (1.9%) Master’s degree 30 (18%) 19 (31%) 11 (11%) Doctorate degree 125 (76%) 35 (56%) 90 (87%) Nationality UAE 24 (15%) 15 (25%) 9 (9.3%) Other asians 58 (37%) 24 (40%) 34 (35%) Africa 20 (13%) 7 (12%) 13 (13%) America/Europe/Australia 55 (35%) 14 (23%) 41 (42%) Employment status Employed 151 (92%) 49 (79%) 102 (99%) Unemployed 14 (8.5%) 13 (21%) 1 (1.0%) Employer College or university 127 (78%) 37 (62%) 90 (87%) Federal, or government setting 20 (12%) 10 (17%) 10 (10%) Others 16 (10%) 15 (21%) 3 (3%) Years of employment in STEM 20 years 73 (44%) 12 (19%) 61 (59%) Home main income source Self 130 (82%) 36 (60%) 94 (96%) Others 28 (18%) 24 (40%) 4 (4%) Factors influencing women to be in STEM Most women (77%) were influenced to join STEM driven by a personal interest or passion ( Figure 1 ). 18% of respondents were influenced by family and 16% chose a STEM field for a better work environment. Role models in STEM only influenced the choice in 13% of respondents. Figure 1. Most influencing factors to be in STEM among women. Feeling about current STEM job Generally, a higher percentage of women (45% vs 23% for men) considered quitting their current STEM job in the last 2-3 years ( Figure 2 ). Overall, men were most likely to feel better in their current STEM job than women ( Figure 3 ). Specifically, more men, than women, reported that “they feel their current job matches their educational background and skills” (94% versus 76%), that “they feel they were growing professionally” (67% versus 42%), that “they see a path for to advance their career at their institution” (70% versus 54%), and that “they were equitably fairly rewarded” (54% versus 38%) among others. Figure 2. Considered quitting STEM job in the last 2-3 years. Figure 3. How participants feel about their current STEM job by gender. Gender inequality and the participants’ experience Of the respondents, 47% of women and 28% of men believed that there is a lack of gender equality in STEM ( Figure 4 ). Moreover, a significantly higher proportion of women reported experiencing gender inequality (44% women compared to 8% men). Females (aOR=15.8, 95% CI=6.08-45.7, p<0.001) and those in academic sector (aOR=3.38, 95% CI=1.15-11.3, p=0.035) were significantly more likely to experience gender inequality ( Table 2 ). Figure 4. Gender inequality and the experience of women and men. Table 2. Association between demographics and gender inequality experience. Factors cOR 95% CI p-value aOR 95% CI p-value Age < 40 1.00 1.00 ≥ 40 1.11 0.49, 2.70 0.800 2.00 0.75, 5.71 0.200 Gender Male 1.00 1.00 Female 9.16 3.96, 23.4 <0.001 15.8 6.08, 45.7 0.900 1.45 0.26, 11.4 0.700 Employer Others 1.00 1.00 College or university 1.41 0.56, 4.06 0.500 3.38 1.15, 11.3 0.035 Attitude towards challenges facing women in STEM Overall, women expressed negative attitudes regarding challenges facing them in STEM ( Figure 5 ). Majority of both women (82%) and men (62%) believed that “the caregiver stereotype forces women to choose more often than men between time intensive careers and having a family.” Additionally, majority of women also believed that “the historical bias against women’s ability in science that is culturally widespread” (63%), that “cultural stereotypes of women scientists still exist” (58%), that “leadership opportunities for men often come with more resources” (53%), that “organizations expect women to be more qualified than men for the same positions” (53%), and that “women lack access to mentors and networking opportunities compared to men” (52%). Furthermore, 35% of the women believed that “the glass ceiling in their institutions prevents women and minorities from reaching the highest levels in STEM.” In contrast, only a minority of men (16%) believed “leadership opportunities for men often come with more resources”, and only 15% believed that “organizations expect women to be more qualified than men for the same positions”, and only 9% of men believed that “women lack access to mentors and networking opportunities compared to men”. Lastly, a relatively comparable percentage of men (24%), in contrast to 35% women, believed a glass ceiling effect exist in STEM. Figure 5. Attitude toward challenges facing women in STEM in the UAE. Workplace challenges and experiences in STEM More women, than men, reported having experienced gender-based unfair treatment from direct manager and/or peers (35% versus 3%), that they had observed/experienced seeing women face lack of career progression in the STEM field (39% versus 13%), and that they had observed women being treated unfairly at work based on gender (45% versus 8%). Forty-four percent and sixty percent of women and men respectively said that their CEOs supports women in leadership ( Figure 6 ). Although 42% of women and 30% of men said their organizations had diversity inclusion-focused committee (DIFC), only 26% and 18% respectively said the DIFCs had been instrumental in promoting leadership roles for women ( Figure 7 ). Figure 6. Workplace challenges and experiences faced by women and men in STEM in the UAE. Figure 7. Presence and functioning of organizational diversity and inclusion-focused committee (DIFC) at participants’ workplaces. Support needed to thrive in STEM Among women, the most common support needed to thrive in STEM were respectful/proper interactions with manager (58%), healthcare benefits (55%) and flexible schedules (48%) among others ( Figure 8 ). While for men, the most common support needed to thrive in STEM were healthcare benefits (59%), flexible schedules (48%), and respectful/proper interactions with manager (47%) among others ( Figure 9 ). Figure 8. Support needed to thrive in STEM – Females. Figure 9. Support needed to thrive in STEM – Males. Discussion In this cross-sectional analysis of adult men and women who either graduated or were working in the STEM fields in multiple institutions of higher education across the United Arab Emirates, we found that more women reported to experience gender-based unfair treatment from direct managers and/or peers, lacked access to mentors and networking opportunities compared with their male counterparts, and organizations provided more resources to men for leadership opportunities while asking women to be more qualified for the same positions. Furthermore, more men than women reported to agree that their current job matched with their educational background and skills, and more women than men considered the possibility of quitting the job in STEM in the last 2-3 years. For retention in the STEM, women rated flexible work schedule, proper interactions with direct manager, and tenure promotional opportunities higher than men. Our results are consistent with the findings of earlier studies demonstrating the prevalence of gender bias in science disciplines, and how this bias may affect the professional hiring, promotion, mentoring, and funding opportunities ( Moss-Racusin et al. 2012 ; Steinpreis, Anders, and Ritzke 1999 ; Reuben, Sapienza, and Zingales 2014 ) . The findings of a double blind RCT indicated that male applicants for a lab manager position, evaluated by both male and female science faculty, were significantly more likely to be hired, receive a higher annual salary, and to get more mentoring opportunities than the female applicants ( Moss-Racusin et al. 2012 ). Similar results were reported by others across diverse fields showing that job applicants with female names were less likely to be called by employers ( Quadlin 2018 ) , woman faculty member was also less likely to receive tenure because her research contributions are often undervalued ( Sarsons 2017 ), and male applicants were favored over females for peer review in grant fundings ( Robyn et al. 2018 ). Approximately 40% of women in our study considered leaving STEM, and these results are in line with a recent publication showing comparable numbers ( Conrad, Abdallah, and Ross 2021 ). Many factors have been reported to affect the women retention in the STEM which include but not limited to work life balance or flexibility, unequal standards for men and women, stress and gender discrimination ( Conrad, Abdallah, and Ross 2021 ; Blackburn 2017 ; Smith and Gayles 2017 ). The women in our study rated flexible work schedule much higher than men to stay in their respective jobs. The lack of flexibility regarding family commitments has been recognized as a factor motivating women to pursue careers outside of STEM ( Conrad, Abdallah, and Ross 2021 ). Other factors rated higher by the women in our study were the support systems in terms of clear communications with direct managers and promotional opportunities. The results of a study of junior biomedical researchers comprising of 92 women and 127 men who applied for early-career grant fundings showed that junior faculty women received significantly less start-up support compared with men from their institutes ( Sege, Nykiel-Bub, and Selk 2015 ). The lack of these support systems could influence the persistence of women in their chosen careers ( Conrad, Abdallah, and Ross 2021 ). There is also evidence that these specific challenges faced by women during their professional careers in STEM may even persist during the periods of college or university education, and can have career-impacting effects. Previous research has identified various factors, including low level of self-efficacy despite being equally prepared ( Koch et al. 2022 ), inadequate support from family, school and faculty ( Tandrayen-Ragoobur and Gokulsing 2021 ), as well as other psychosocial and non-cognitive elements ( Ortiz-Martínez et al. 2023 ) that might contribute to women showing lower persistence rates than men when it comes to completing a STEM degree. The findings also suggest that gender gap in STEM education is not an isolated issue but rather a systemic challenge. Several strategies have been proposed to address the gender disparity in STEM areas using various approaches, including efforts related to attraction, access, and retention ( García-Peñalvo et al. 2019 ). The framework proposed by Eddy and Brownell ( Eddy and Brownell 2016 ) identified observable inequalities in performance and engagement as factors contributing to gender gaps. Makarem and Wang ( Makarem and Wang 2019 ) highlighted various coping strategies women generally employ, including conforming to expectations, engaging in impression management, and taking proactive steps to assert themselves and overcome obstacles, to counter the challenges related to predominantly male-dominated environments, including gendered organizational culture and stereotypes. Furthermore, the underrepresentation of women in STEM filed is partly due to systemic obstacles to the recruitment, retention and promotion, and institutes should consider implementing strategies to change the structures and climates of workplaces, and to create a more inclusive and supportive environment for women pursuing STEM careers ( DeAro, Bird, and Mitchell-Ryan 2019 ). The international organizations have emphasized on critical significance of addressing the gender disparity in higher education, specifically within the STEM. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 4, with a specific focus on target 4.3, calls for equal access to tertiary education, including universities, for both women and men ( Heleta and Bagus 2020 ). Data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) show a significant improvement in the fields of natural sciences, mathematics, and statistics, achieving a state of gender parity. However, this achievement contrasts with the persistence of a gender gap in fields like engineering and information and communication technologies. The OECD also highlights the importance of eradicating stereotypes, implementing gender balance policies across various academic disciplines, and actively cultivating an inclusive environment to encourage greater female participation in traditionally male-dominated fields ( Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 2021 ; OECD 2021 ). These findings are congruent with the observation that the majority of CEOs and members of higher management in STEM related institutions are men. Women reported higher career challenges when it comes to socio-cultural roles, lifestyle values and work-family balance. Awareness-raising campaigns and providing flexible work arrangements can help women balance their work and family responsibilities. Male participants strongly agreed that their current job matches their educational background and skills (80% vs 45%). This may be explained in view of bias in hiring or gender related personal traits and inclinations. More questions are needed to clarify reasons behind participants’ input. For example, some may feel that they are over-qualified for the current job or vice versa. Interestingly, only 26% of women and 42% of men reported having an organizational diversity and inclusion focused committee. The latter committee when present, proved useful in ensuring a more inclusive and supportive environment for women. Thus, institutional responsibility towards employees and community is of paramount importance. Appropriate institutional policies and procedures help close the gender gap in STEM and ensure that women have the same opportunities as men to succeed in these fields. Up to our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate retention and progression challenges encountered by women in STEM fields in the UAE. It examines this issue from the perspectives of both male and female individuals in STEM fields across various institutes within the UAE. Employing a validated questionnaire, ensures a systematic exploration of pertinent factors and allow for benchmarking with other countries in the globe. Furthermore, the piloting process and calculation of Cronbach’s alpha underscore the methodological rigor and reliability of the study. The study has some limitations. One is that it lacks data on the social inclusion of women in STEM, a critical aspect for comprehending broader socio-cultural influences on their experiences in the field. But this is important to know, since social factors can have a big impact on women’s experiences in STEM. For example, research has shown that stereotypes can make women feel less engaged and less like they fit in at work. So, not having information about social inclusion makes it harder to understand the full picture. Another limitation is that the study doesn’t look at differences between different types of STEM fields, like engineering and science. Research has shown that these fields can have different challenges and working environments. So, not accounting for these differences could make the findings less specific. We recommend conducting longitudinal research tracking the career trajectories of women in STEM fields over time to provide valuable insights into the factors influencing their career decisions and outcomes. Understanding how these factors evolve over time can inform strategies for improving retention and promoting gender diversity in STEM and can be insightful for policy makers. Conclusions Gender related work challenges affecting women scientists’ retention in the UAE and progress in STEM fields still exists. Increasing societal awareness, and endorsing governmental and institutional initiatives, policies and procedures to challenge stereotypes and promote gender equality are required. Author contributions Conceptualization, A. R, L. Z, S. A, H. A, R. F, P.S; methodology, A. Z, JN, S.A; validation, A. R, J.N; analysis, A. Z, S.A, A. S, A.S.A; X.X.; investigation, X.X.; resources, X.X.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, S. A, A.R, J. N, A.A. writing—review and editing, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Ethics and consent The study was approved by the Social Sciences Ethics Committee (IRB) of the United Arab Emirates University with approval number ERSC_2022_1527 on 25/10/2022. A detailed information sheet about the purpose of the study was distributed to participants, and written informed consent was obtained from each participant before inclusion in the study. Involvement of human participants compiled with the ethical standards set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki. Data availability Underlying data OSF: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study. https://osf.io/br983/?view_only=162d544f6536458b86c32fe62a874bb7 ( Almarzooqi 2024 ). This project contains the following underlying data: • STEM DATASET.xlsx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Extended data OSF: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study. https://osf.io/br983/?view_only=162d544f6536458b86c32fe62a874bb7 ( Almarzooqi 2024 ). This project contains the following extended data: • Extended data 1 _STEM Survey.pdf • Extended data 2_ STROBE_checklist_cross-sectional_ATR_STEM.docx Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0). Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Mohamed Mohammed bin Rashid Academy of Scientists. This article was an initiative launched through the diversity in science committee. References Almarzooqi S: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study. Almarzooqi S, editor. OSF; 2024. Reference Source Alzaabi I, Ramirez-Garcia A, Moyano M: Gendered STEM: A Systematic Review and Applied Analysis of Female Participation in STEM in the United Arab Emirates. Educ. Sci. 2021; 11 (10). Publisher Full Text Blackburn H: The Status of Women in STEM in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature 2007–2017. Sci. Technol. Libr. 2017; 36 (3): 235–273. Publisher Full Text Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Annual Report: 2019–20. Casad BJ, Garasky CE, Jancetic TR, et al. : US Women Faculty in the Social Sciences Also Face Gender Inequalities. Front. Psychol. 2022; 13 . PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Chen B, Dou Y, Yu X, et al. : Influence of Internet-Based Health Management on Control of Clinical Parameters in Patients With Hypertension: Four-Year Longitudinal Study. J. Med. Internet Res. 2023; 25 : e42896. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Conrad M, Abdallah A, Ross L: WHY IS RETAINING WOMEN IN STEM CAREERS SO CHALLENGING? A CLOSER LOOK AT WOMEN’S INSIGHTS AND EXPERIENCES IN STEM FIELDS.2021. Cyr EN, Bergsieker HB, Dennehy TC, et al. : Mapping social exclusion in STEM to men’s implicit bias and women’s career costs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2021; 118 (40). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text DeAro J, Bird S, Mitchell-Ryan S: NSF ADVANCE and gender equity: Past, present and future of systemic institutional transformation strategies. Equal. Divers. Incl. 2019; 38 : 131–139. Publisher Full Text Eddy SL, Brownell SE: Beneath the numbers: A review of gender disparities in undergraduate education across science, technology, engineering, and math disciplines. Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 2016; 12 (2): 020106. Publisher Full Text Freedman G, Green MC, Kaufman G, et al. : Using Comics and Tweets to Raise Awareness About Gender Biases in STEM. Psychol. Pop. Media. 2022; 11 (1): 56–67. Publisher Full Text García-Peñalvo F, Bello A, Dominguez A, et al. : Education in the Knowledge Society Gender Balance Actions, Policies and Strategies for STEM: Results from a World Café Conversation. Education in the Knowledge Society (EKS). 2019; 20 . Publisher Full Text Heleta S, Bagus T: Sustainable development goals and higher education: leaving many behind. High. Educ. 2020; 81 : 163–177. Publisher Full Text Hopkins N: A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT. AIP Conf. Proc. 2002; 628 (1): 103–106. Publisher Full Text Houjeir R, Al-Kayyali RA-A, Alzyoud S, et al. : UAE Females in STEM higher education. Paper presented at the 2019 Advances in Science and Engineering Technology International Conferences (ASET), 2019-03-01. 2019. Koch AJ, Sackett PR, Kuncel NR, et al. : Why women STEM majors are less likely than men to persist in completing a STEM degree: More than the individual. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2022; 190 : 111532. Publisher Full Text Laursen SL, Austin AE: StratEGIC Toolkit: Strategies for effecting gender equity and institutional change. Boulder, CO: 2014. Accessed 29 August. Reference Source Lawler A: Women in science - Progress on hiring women science faculty members stalls at MIT. Science. 2006; 312 (5772): 347–348. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Makarem Y, Wang J: Career experiences of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields: A systematic literature review. Hum. Resour. Dev. Q. 2019; 31 : 91–111. Publisher Full Text Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, et al. : Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2012; 109 (41): 16474–16479. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. Publisher Full Text Ortiz-Martínez G, Vázquez-Villegas P, Ruiz-Cantisani MI, et al. : Analysis of the retention of women in higher education STEM programs. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023; 10 (1): 101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Patterson L, Varadarajan DS, Salim BS: Women in STEM/SET: gender gap research review of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a meta-analysis. Gend. Manag. 2021; 36 (8): 881–911. Publisher Full Text Quadlin N: The Mark of a Woman’s Record: Gender and Academic Performance in Hiring. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2018; 83 (2): 331–360. Publisher Full Text Rentsch JR, Steel RP: Construct and Concurrent Validation of the Andrews and Withey Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 1992; 52 (2): 357–367. Publisher Full Text Reuben E, Sapienza P, Zingales L: How stereotypes impair women’s careers in science. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2014; 111 (12): 4403–4408. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Robyn T, Girard Nadyne J, Christina Q, et al. : Assessment of potential bias in research grant peer review in Canada. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2018; 190 (16): E489–E499. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Roper RL: Does Gender Bias Still Affect Women in Science? Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2019; 83 (3). PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text Sarsons H: Recognition for Group Work: Gender Differences in Academia. Am. Econ. Rev. 2017; 107 (5): 141–145. Publisher Full Text Sege R, Nykiel-Bub L, Selk S: Sex Differences in Institutional Support for Junior Biomedical Researchers. JAMA. 2015; 314 (11): 1175–1177. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text Smith K, Gayles J: “Setting Up for the Next Big Thing”: Undergraduate Women Engineering Students’ Postbaccalaureate Career Decisions. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2017; 58 : 1201–1217. Publisher Full Text Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, Ritzke D: The Impact of Gender on the Review of the Curricula Vitae of Job Applicants and Tenure Candidates: A National Empirical Study. Sex Roles. 1999; 41 (7): 509–528. Publisher Full Text Tandrayen-Ragoobur V, Gokulsing D: Gender gap in STEM education and career choices: what matters? J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 2021; 14 : 1021–1040. Publisher Full Text UAE GBC Women Facts: UAE Gender Balance Council.2022. Accessed 29 August. Reference Source World Economic Forum: Global Gender Gap Report.2022. Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 Institute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, 15551, United Arab Emirates 2 Department of Circulation and Medical Imaging, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway 3 Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 4 Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 5 Department of Physics, College of Science, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, Abu Dhabi, 15551, United Arab Emirates 6 Center for Astrophysics and Space Science, New York University, Abu Dhabi, 129188, United Arab Emirates Azhar T. Rahma Roles: Conceptualization, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Javaid Nauman Roles: Methodology, Validation, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Alia Albawardi Roles: Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Hajer Alyammahi Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Rim Fares Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Payaswini Saikia Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Aminu S. Abdullahi Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing Abubaker Suliman Roles: Formal Analysis, Writing – Review & Editing Linda Zou Roles: Conceptualization, Writing – Review & Editing Saeeda Almarzooqi Roles: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (3) version 3 Revised Published: 21 Jan 2026, 13:1539 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.3 version 2 Revised Published: 21 Oct 2025, 13:1539 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.2 version 1 Published: 20 Dec 2024, 13:1539 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.1 Copyright © 2024 T. Rahma A et al . This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article T. Rahma A, Nauman J, Albawardi A et al. Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.155420.1 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: McKinnon M. Reviewer Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r354235 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1#referee-response-354235 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 21 Aug 2025 Merryn McKinnon , Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r354235 This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful however would benefit from a little more ... Continue reading READ ALL This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful however would benefit from a little more specificity. The statistics about the number of women graduating in STEM fields in the UAE provides part of the picture. What is the employment rate for women in computer science and engineering in the UAE? Globally these fields tend to have much lower proportions - how does the UAE compare to other countries? (It may be doing better!). Many years ago (circa 2010), in at least one UAE university, health and science were only offered to women while men were expected to study business, HR and finance. Is this split consistent across all institutions and did it still apply in 2022? The lit review also doesn't provide any background to what factors will be asked about or a brief overview of the barriers to retention and progression already identified in myriad studies. This comes in the discussion, which is arguably a bit too late. There is also a unique opportunity in this study in that it offers a perspective from many different nationalities. The multicultural nature of the Emirati society and workforce is not something that would be necessarily known by readers. It provides an even more interesting context within which to discuss the results so it should be covered - even briefly - here. Results - figures 2 and 3 could be combined as could figs 8 and 9. It isn't clear in figs 8 and 9 if respondents feel they already have these and this is what they think is important OR if these are elements that respondents are missing. Discussion - a lot of the elements discussed here likely should have been raised in the literature review. The cited junior biomedical researchers study - is that based in the UAE or elsewhere? The final paragraph before the conclusion talks about "research has shown" but doesn't cite any - it should. What this paper doesn't discuss, and arguably should, is the universality of these results. These are people from a range of different cultural backgrounds working within the UAE. Each respondent brings their own cultural norms to their work, which has its own cultural norms. And the findings here resonate with studies from around the world. There is something about gender in STEM that transcends culture and geography. This paper shows this in microcosm but doesn't make it prominent. It should. Minor edits - fifth para - some references need to replace numbers (6 and 9?) Para 6 - 'toolkit developed by some investigators' - is this still referring to the Casad et al paper or others? Please clarify/cite accordingly. Table 1 - 'other asians' could be made more specific as could the description of 'other' employers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: gender in STEM I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT McKinnon M. Reviewer Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r354235 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1#referee-response-354235 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 27 Sep 2025 Saeeda Almarzooqi , Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates 27 Sep 2025 Author Response Approved With Reservations This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The ... Continue reading Approved With Reservations This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful, however would benefit from a little more specificity. The statistics about the number of women graduating in STEM fields in the UAE provides part of the picture. What is the employment rate for women in computer science and engineering in the UAE? Globally these fields tend to have much lower proportions - how does the UAE compare to other countries? (It may be doing better!). Many years ago (circa 2010), in at least one UAE university, health and science were only offered to women while men were expected to study business, HR and finance. Is this split consistent across all institutions and did it still apply in 2022? The lit review also doesn't provide any background to what factors will be asked about or a brief overview of the barriers to retention and progression already identified in myriad studies. This comes in the discussion, which is arguably a bit too late. There is also a unique opportunity in this study in that it offers a perspective from many different nationalities. The multicultural nature of the Emirati society and workforce is not something that would be necessarily known by readers. It provides an even more interesting context within which to discuss the results so it should be covered - even briefly - here. Results - figures 2 and 3 could be combined as could figs 8 and 9. It isn't clear in figs 8 and 9 if respondents feel they already have these and this is what they think is important OR if these are elements that respondents are missing. Discussion - a lot of the elements discussed here likely should have been raised in the literature review. Response : We have now integrated the summary of key findings in the revised Introduction/literature review section of the manuscript. The cited junior biomedical researchers study - is that based in the UAE or elsewhere? Response: The study was conducted in the United States, and used the data from two New England biomedical research programs administered by the Medical Foundation Division of Health Resources in Action. We have now clarified the setting (United States) of the study in the revised manuscript. The final paragraph before the conclusion talks about "research has shown" but doesn't cite any - it should. Response: We have now provided the relevant citations to the statements in the revised manuscript. What this paper doesn't discuss, and arguably should, is the universality of these results. These are people from a range of different cultural backgrounds working within the UAE. Each respondent brings their own cultural norms to their work, which has its own cultural norms. And the findings here resonate with studies from around the world. There is something about gender in STEM that transcends culture and geography. This paper shows this in microcosm but doesn't make it prominent. It should. Response: We have now added a paragraph in the Discussion section addressing this point. We discuss how our results, derived from a uniquely multicultural context in the UAE, align with and reinforce findings from Western, Eastern, and other cultural settings. This new text argues that this convergence of evidence suggests a pervasive, trans-cultural pattern of gender bias in STEM, potentially pointing to deeper, field-specific mechanisms. We believe this revision significantly strengthens the paper's contribution and broadens its impact, and we are grateful for the suggestion. Minor edits - fifth para - some references need to replace numbers (6 and 9?) Para 6 - 'toolkit developed by some investigators' - is this still referring to the Casad et al paper or others? Please clarify/cite accordingly. Table 1 - 'other asians' could be made more specific as could the description of 'other' employers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Approved With Reservations This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful, however would benefit from a little more specificity. The statistics about the number of women graduating in STEM fields in the UAE provides part of the picture. What is the employment rate for women in computer science and engineering in the UAE? Globally these fields tend to have much lower proportions - how does the UAE compare to other countries? (It may be doing better!). Many years ago (circa 2010), in at least one UAE university, health and science were only offered to women while men were expected to study business, HR and finance. Is this split consistent across all institutions and did it still apply in 2022? The lit review also doesn't provide any background to what factors will be asked about or a brief overview of the barriers to retention and progression already identified in myriad studies. This comes in the discussion, which is arguably a bit too late. There is also a unique opportunity in this study in that it offers a perspective from many different nationalities. The multicultural nature of the Emirati society and workforce is not something that would be necessarily known by readers. It provides an even more interesting context within which to discuss the results so it should be covered - even briefly - here. Results - figures 2 and 3 could be combined as could figs 8 and 9. It isn't clear in figs 8 and 9 if respondents feel they already have these and this is what they think is important OR if these are elements that respondents are missing. Discussion - a lot of the elements discussed here likely should have been raised in the literature review. Response : We have now integrated the summary of key findings in the revised Introduction/literature review section of the manuscript. The cited junior biomedical researchers study - is that based in the UAE or elsewhere? Response: The study was conducted in the United States, and used the data from two New England biomedical research programs administered by the Medical Foundation Division of Health Resources in Action. We have now clarified the setting (United States) of the study in the revised manuscript. The final paragraph before the conclusion talks about "research has shown" but doesn't cite any - it should. Response: We have now provided the relevant citations to the statements in the revised manuscript. What this paper doesn't discuss, and arguably should, is the universality of these results. These are people from a range of different cultural backgrounds working within the UAE. Each respondent brings their own cultural norms to their work, which has its own cultural norms. And the findings here resonate with studies from around the world. There is something about gender in STEM that transcends culture and geography. This paper shows this in microcosm but doesn't make it prominent. It should. Response: We have now added a paragraph in the Discussion section addressing this point. We discuss how our results, derived from a uniquely multicultural context in the UAE, align with and reinforce findings from Western, Eastern, and other cultural settings. This new text argues that this convergence of evidence suggests a pervasive, trans-cultural pattern of gender bias in STEM, potentially pointing to deeper, field-specific mechanisms. We believe this revision significantly strengthens the paper's contribution and broadens its impact, and we are grateful for the suggestion. Minor edits - fifth para - some references need to replace numbers (6 and 9?) Para 6 - 'toolkit developed by some investigators' - is this still referring to the Casad et al paper or others? Please clarify/cite accordingly. Table 1 - 'other asians' could be made more specific as could the description of 'other' employers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 27 Sep 2025 Saeeda Almarzooqi , Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates 27 Sep 2025 Author Response Approved With Reservations This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The ... Continue reading Approved With Reservations This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful, however would benefit from a little more specificity. The statistics about the number of women graduating in STEM fields in the UAE provides part of the picture. What is the employment rate for women in computer science and engineering in the UAE? Globally these fields tend to have much lower proportions - how does the UAE compare to other countries? (It may be doing better!). Many years ago (circa 2010), in at least one UAE university, health and science were only offered to women while men were expected to study business, HR and finance. Is this split consistent across all institutions and did it still apply in 2022? The lit review also doesn't provide any background to what factors will be asked about or a brief overview of the barriers to retention and progression already identified in myriad studies. This comes in the discussion, which is arguably a bit too late. There is also a unique opportunity in this study in that it offers a perspective from many different nationalities. The multicultural nature of the Emirati society and workforce is not something that would be necessarily known by readers. It provides an even more interesting context within which to discuss the results so it should be covered - even briefly - here. Results - figures 2 and 3 could be combined as could figs 8 and 9. It isn't clear in figs 8 and 9 if respondents feel they already have these and this is what they think is important OR if these are elements that respondents are missing. Discussion - a lot of the elements discussed here likely should have been raised in the literature review. Response : We have now integrated the summary of key findings in the revised Introduction/literature review section of the manuscript. The cited junior biomedical researchers study - is that based in the UAE or elsewhere? Response: The study was conducted in the United States, and used the data from two New England biomedical research programs administered by the Medical Foundation Division of Health Resources in Action. We have now clarified the setting (United States) of the study in the revised manuscript. The final paragraph before the conclusion talks about "research has shown" but doesn't cite any - it should. Response: We have now provided the relevant citations to the statements in the revised manuscript. What this paper doesn't discuss, and arguably should, is the universality of these results. These are people from a range of different cultural backgrounds working within the UAE. Each respondent brings their own cultural norms to their work, which has its own cultural norms. And the findings here resonate with studies from around the world. There is something about gender in STEM that transcends culture and geography. This paper shows this in microcosm but doesn't make it prominent. It should. Response: We have now added a paragraph in the Discussion section addressing this point. We discuss how our results, derived from a uniquely multicultural context in the UAE, align with and reinforce findings from Western, Eastern, and other cultural settings. This new text argues that this convergence of evidence suggests a pervasive, trans-cultural pattern of gender bias in STEM, potentially pointing to deeper, field-specific mechanisms. We believe this revision significantly strengthens the paper's contribution and broadens its impact, and we are grateful for the suggestion. Minor edits - fifth para - some references need to replace numbers (6 and 9?) Para 6 - 'toolkit developed by some investigators' - is this still referring to the Casad et al paper or others? Please clarify/cite accordingly. Table 1 - 'other asians' could be made more specific as could the description of 'other' employers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Approved With Reservations This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful, however would benefit from a little more specificity. The statistics about the number of women graduating in STEM fields in the UAE provides part of the picture. What is the employment rate for women in computer science and engineering in the UAE? Globally these fields tend to have much lower proportions - how does the UAE compare to other countries? (It may be doing better!). Many years ago (circa 2010), in at least one UAE university, health and science were only offered to women while men were expected to study business, HR and finance. Is this split consistent across all institutions and did it still apply in 2022? The lit review also doesn't provide any background to what factors will be asked about or a brief overview of the barriers to retention and progression already identified in myriad studies. This comes in the discussion, which is arguably a bit too late. There is also a unique opportunity in this study in that it offers a perspective from many different nationalities. The multicultural nature of the Emirati society and workforce is not something that would be necessarily known by readers. It provides an even more interesting context within which to discuss the results so it should be covered - even briefly - here. Results - figures 2 and 3 could be combined as could figs 8 and 9. It isn't clear in figs 8 and 9 if respondents feel they already have these and this is what they think is important OR if these are elements that respondents are missing. Discussion - a lot of the elements discussed here likely should have been raised in the literature review. Response : We have now integrated the summary of key findings in the revised Introduction/literature review section of the manuscript. The cited junior biomedical researchers study - is that based in the UAE or elsewhere? Response: The study was conducted in the United States, and used the data from two New England biomedical research programs administered by the Medical Foundation Division of Health Resources in Action. We have now clarified the setting (United States) of the study in the revised manuscript. The final paragraph before the conclusion talks about "research has shown" but doesn't cite any - it should. Response: We have now provided the relevant citations to the statements in the revised manuscript. What this paper doesn't discuss, and arguably should, is the universality of these results. These are people from a range of different cultural backgrounds working within the UAE. Each respondent brings their own cultural norms to their work, which has its own cultural norms. And the findings here resonate with studies from around the world. There is something about gender in STEM that transcends culture and geography. This paper shows this in microcosm but doesn't make it prominent. It should. Response: We have now added a paragraph in the Discussion section addressing this point. We discuss how our results, derived from a uniquely multicultural context in the UAE, align with and reinforce findings from Western, Eastern, and other cultural settings. This new text argues that this convergence of evidence suggests a pervasive, trans-cultural pattern of gender bias in STEM, potentially pointing to deeper, field-specific mechanisms. We believe this revision significantly strengthens the paper's contribution and broadens its impact, and we are grateful for the suggestion. Minor edits - fifth para - some references need to replace numbers (6 and 9?) Para 6 - 'toolkit developed by some investigators' - is this still referring to the Casad et al paper or others? Please clarify/cite accordingly. Table 1 - 'other asians' could be made more specific as could the description of 'other' employers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Vázquez-Villegas P. Reviewer Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r369763 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1#referee-response-369763 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 21 Mar 2025 Patricia Vázquez-Villegas , Tecnologico de Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r369763 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid ... Continue reading READ ALL The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid responses on the challenges individuals face in staying in STEM fields. 62% of the respondents were men. I propose that the article's authors consider my following comments, if they consider it relevant: 1. My biggest concern is: If the study focuses on women, why not wait until the expected number of female responses was collected? I do not disregard the fact that men also face workplace inequities in STEM. However, would it be worthwhile to frame the study as a comparative analysis between men and women? Such an approach could generate insights into addressing diversity and finding common ground to eliminate inequities. 2. On page 3, it is mentioned: "(consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1)." Please report exactly how many were open-ended and how many were closed-ended. 3. If the surveys contained open-ended questions, why were the responses not analyzed using thematic analysis or coding? For example, Question 22 asks about perceived barriers, yet these are not described in the main manuscript, nor are Questions 43 and 44. 4. How was Cronbach’s alpha calculated for questions of different types? For instance, Question 2 follows a Likert scale, while others are Yes/No, multiple-choice, or true/false. I believe the authors should better explain how the survey results were analyzed. 5. It is necessary to present information about the number of questions eliminated during the pilot phase. 6. The sample size calculation is presented, but the result is not stated. Is it 165? Did the sampling stop at participant 165? 7. Some acronyms, such as MIT or WHO, need to be defined. Ensure that all acronyms are introduced with their full form when first mentioned. 8. Can the authors identify relationships between respondents’ characteristics and their answers? For example, if a participant is a woman and also has children, does this intensify the challenges they face? 9. I am unsure whether the phrase "bread-earners" is appropriate for this manuscript. 10. Table 2 should be explained in more detail. Explicitly describe what the statistical test results mean. 11. Most of the text in the results section repeats what is already observed in the figures and tables. While this is not entirely incorrect, it might be better to explain more about the meaning or implications of these results. Otherwise, I suggest merging some figures into one (placing them side by side) to save space and improve readability, for example, Figures 8 and 9. 12. The authors' conclusion is very limited. For instance, it is a fact that, in many parts of the world, women still face challenges in STEM fields. But what does this new study suggest to counteract the already well-known systemic challenges? What is the main contribution of this work? Please, highlight the significance of this work. 13. Please, add titles to the subsections, such as "Study Limitations." I also suggest adding subtitles in the discussion section, to maked more organized. Based on the concerns raised in the previous comments, here are some suggestions to accomplish the questionaire of the peer-review form: 1. Current literature? → Partly Authors may expand the literature review to better contextualize findings within existing and recent (not more than 5 years old) research on gender disparities in STEM, particularly in the UAE and similar regions. 2. Appropriate desig: → Partly Please, justify why qualitative analysis was not used. If feasible, include some qualitative analysis to capture nuanced insights from open-ended responses. Also, clarify why the mixed-gender approach was necessary or consider conducting a gender-comparative analysis to provide additional insights. 3. Sufficient details of methods → Partly Authors can clearly describe how the internal consistency was measured across diverse question types and justify the approach taken. Also, provide the actual calculated sample size and explain whether data collection stopped at 165 participants or if any adjustments were made. 4. Appropriateness of statistical analysis → I would say partly Please, expand the description of Table 2, detailing the significance of the results and how they support the study’s conclusions. Provide rationale for the selection of the statistical methods. 5. Reproducibility → Partly Authors may include information about how many questions were eliminated and why, as this is important for reproducibility. If possible, provide a supplementary file with anonymized responses for open uestions or summaries of key themes. 6. Adequate conclusions → Partly Discuss potential interventions or policy recommendations based on the findings. Authors may address how organizations or policymakers could use these insights to mitigate gender-based challenges in STEM. I hope these comments are useful to you! Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: STEM education, education for sustainability, continuing education. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Vázquez-Villegas P. Reviewer Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r369763 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1#referee-response-369763 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 28 Oct 2025 Saeeda Almarzooqi , Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates 28 Oct 2025 Author Response Reviewer 1 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study ... Continue reading Reviewer 1 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid responses on the challenges individuals face in staying in STEM fields. 62% of the respondents were men. I propose that the article's authors consider my following comments, if they consider it relevant: 1. My biggest concern is: If the study focuses on women, why not wait until the expected number of female responses was collected? I do not disregard the fact that men also face workplace inequities in STEM. However, would it be worthwhile to frame the study as a comparative analysis between men and women? Such an approach could generate insights into addressing diversity and finding common ground to eliminate inequities. Thank you for this thoughtful comment and valuable suggestion. Our original intent was indeed to focus primarily on women’s retention and progression in STEM fields and also understand issue from both gender view. However, during the data collection with the snowball sampling strategy, a significant proportion of responses came from male participants working in the same fields and institutions. Rather than excluding these responses, we decided to include them to enrich the analysis and allow for comparative insights between genders. We acknowledge the limitation regarding the smaller proportion of female respondents (38%) and have now elaborated on this issue in the Limitations section of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we agree with the reviewer that the comparative perspective strengthens the study by shedding light on the differing experiences of men and women in STEM, which may help in identifying shared and divergent challenges. Therefore, we have reframed parts of the analysis and discussion to reflect this comparative lens more clearly. 2. On page 3, it is mentioned: "(consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1)." Please report exactly how many were open-ended and how many were closed-ended. Thank you very much for highlighting this point. Upon reviewing the final version of the survey tool, we realized that the description in the manuscript was outdated and inaccurately stated the number of items. The survey actually consisted of 44 questions , not 28 as originally mentioned. Of these: 6 were open-ended questions , which invited participants to share their personal experiences, insights, or suggestions (e.g., questions 3, 11, 14, 22, 43, and 44). 38 were closed-ended questions , covering a range of formats including Likert scales, multiple-choice, true/false, and rating scale items. We have corrected this information in the revised manuscript to ensure full transparency and accuracy in describing the methodology. We truly appreciate your attention to detail—it helped us improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. 3. If the surveys contained open-ended questions, why were the responses not analyzed using thematic analysis or coding? For example, Question 22 asks about perceived barriers, yet these are not described in the main manuscript, nor are Questions 43 and 44. Thank you for this excellent observation. You are absolutely right that analyzing the open-ended responses—particularly for Question 22—would add valuable depth and context to our findings. Initially, our focus was on presenting the quantitative results of the study, and we did not include a formal thematic analysis of the qualitative items due to space constraints and our emphasis on the statistical findings. However, we fully agree that the rich narratives provided by respondents offer important insights into the lived experiences of women in STEM. In response to your suggestion, we have now conducted a thematic analysis of the responses to Question 22. The open-ended responses were independently reviewed and coded by two researchers using an inductive approach. Five main themes emerged: Themes from Reported Barriers to Women's Advancement in STEM (Q22 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Gender Bias in Hiring, Pay, and Promotion Systemic discrimination where women receive unequal treatment in hiring, compensation, promotion, or leadership access. "His salary was higher", HR replied that he is a man, he has to support the family." "Men promoted or given responsibility when CV of the female employee is clearly superior" 2. Motherhood and Family Responsibilities as Career Barriers Women's roles as mothers and caregivers negatively affect their career progress or continuity. "Female pharmacists, might request later maternity leave."‌ "Career gaps due to childbearing" do not affect men."‌ 3. Lack of Institutional Support and Flexibility Inadequate policies or accommodations for women's needs, such as flexible hours, childcare, or post-maternity reintegration. "Inflexible workloads, giving women more opportunities to have part-time hours, online meetings, etc."‌ "Lack of support after maternity leave."‌ 4. Cultural and Social Norms Reinforcing Gender Roles Societal and workplace norms that reinforce traditional female roles and diminish professional credibility or opportunities. "Women are questioned about their commitment if they want both a family and a career."‌ "Cultural need for women to manage household and childcare."‌ 5. Exclusion from Networks, Resources, and Fair Processes Limited access to support, networks, or fair processes due to male-dominated environments, favoritism, or underrepresentation. "Female faculty did not receive lab space,male did."‌ "Not a single woman in university management."‌ Thematic Analysis - Women Leaving Science Careers Early ( Q43 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Family Responsibilities and Caregiving Burden The overwhelming burden of caregiving duties (e.g., children, elderly, spouse) often forces women to prioritize home over career. "Family commitments. Family responsibilities. Care for children and the elderly." 2. Lack of Work-Life Balance and Flexibility Rigid work hours, long shifts, and inability to adjust roles to accommodate personal life lead to burnout and early career exit. "Inflexibility for work time. Workload. Long hours and heavy work responsibilities." 3. Poor Workplace Culture and Mental Health Strain Toxic work environments, stress, mental exhaustion, and lack of appreciation contribute to resignation. "Poor work environment… they choose mental health over money and career advancement." 4. Gender Discrimination and Lack of Career Progression Inequity in promotions, lack of recognition, and systemic bias demoralize women and block advancement. "Lack of promotion. Working hard but suppressed by male colleagues. Bias and discrimination." 5. Structural and Policy Gaps (e.g., parental leave, support systems) Lack of institutional support such as maternity leave, reintegration policies, and job security for women scientists. "Insufficient parental leave policies. Difficult to relaunch career after maternity. Lack of stable positions." When asked about their recommendations to the employer and government on how to improve the employment and career environment for women scientists, respondents recommended improving the work environment for women scientists by introducing flexible working hours, remote work options, and part-time roles to support work-life balance. They emphasized the need for better childcare support, including on-site daycare and extended paid maternity leave, along with policies that facilitate reintegration after childbirth. Calls were also made for equitable hiring, promotion, and leadership opportunities, more mentorship and female role models, and increased recognition through fair pay and dedicated research funding. Institutional reforms, such as clear gender equality policies and accountability measures, were seen as essential. These themes have now been incorporated into the revised results and discussion sections of the manuscript. We are grateful for your feedback, which helped us enhance the richness of our findings. 4. How was Cronbach’s alpha calculated for questions of different types? For instance, Question 2 follows a Likert scale, while others are Yes/No, multiple-choice, or true/false. I believe the authors should better explain how the survey results were analyzed. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that multiple-choice, or true/false questions are not applicable in the reliability analysis carried out using Cronbach’s alpha. In this analysis, a reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). The following text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX] A reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). In details, the attitude subscale was found to have questionable reliability (9 items (Q23.1 to Q23.9); α = .63), the satisfaction subscale indicated acceptable reliability (8 items (Q28 to Q35); α = .78), and the retention subscale reached excellent reliability (7 items (Q36 to Q41); α = .92). Most items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted from the subscale. The one exception to this was item Q23.1 in attitude subscale “ It is important to take action to increase the involvement of women and girls in STEM fields. ”, which would increase the alpha to α = 0.73 if deleted. Therefore, removal of this item was considered. Furthermore, one question in the retention subscale “ Please rate the importance of Paid leadership development related to your workplace (7 stars are the highest score and 1 star is the lowest score) ” was removed during pilot phase validity due to difficulty in comprehending the question by the respondents. 5. It is necessary to present information about the number of questions eliminated during the pilot phase. This question has been answered in 4 above and is reflected in the manuscript. 6. The sample size calculation is presented, but the result is not stated. Is it 165? Did the sampling stop at participant 165? Thank you for highlighting this important point. We acknowledge that the explanation around the sample size calculation and final number of participants was not fully clear in the original manuscript. Using the WHO sample size calculator for cross-sectional studies—with a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%—the calculated sample size was 384. However, we were only able to collect 165 valid responses during the data collection period (November 2022 to July 2023). This shortfall was largely due to the sensitive nature of the topic, which likely impacted participation rates, particularly among female professionals in STEM fields. We fully recognize this as a limitation and have now explicitly stated both the calculated sample size and the final number of responses in the revised manuscript. We have also expanded the limitations section to reflect how this may affect the generalizability of the findings. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which helped us improve the transparency and completeness of our methods reporting. Below is sentence added to the limitation: “The study did not reach the initially calculated sample size, primarily due to the sensitivity of the topic, which may affect the representativeness and generalizability of the findings.” 7. Some acronyms, such as MIT or WHO, need to be defined. Ensure that all acronyms are introduced with their full form when first mentioned. In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all acronyms—including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and World Health Organization (WHO)—are now introduced in full upon first mention. This has been corrected throughout the revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the readability of the paper. 8. Can the authors identify relationships between respondents’ characteristics and their answers? For example, if a participant is a woman and also has children, does this intensify the challenges they face? We agree that exploring associations between the various challenges and participants’ characteristics, such as number of children, would be valuable. However, this is not within the scope of our study, and may not be appropriate given our small to medium sample size, especially when further split across categories of participants’ characteristics. Such analysis was only performed for the main outcome variable — “experience of gender inequality” — as presented in Table 2. 9. I am unsure whether the phrase "bread-earners" is appropriate for this manuscript. Suggest to change to economic provider or principal financial supporter. 10. Table 2 should be explained in more detail. Explicitly describe what the statistical test results mean. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. 11. Most of the text in the results section repeats what is already observed in the figures and tables. While this is not entirely incorrect, it might be better to explain more about the meaning or implications of these results. Otherwise, I suggest merging some figures into one (placing them side by side) to save space and improve readability, for example, Figures 8 and 9. We agree with this valuable observation by the reviewer. Hence, we have merged Figures 8 and 9 to save space and improve readability. 12. The authors' conclusion is very limited. For instance, it is a fact that, in many parts of the world, women still face challenges in STEM fields. But what does this new study suggest to counteract the already well-known systemic challenges? What is the main contribution of this work? Please, highlight the significance of this work. The conclusion has been revised to emphasize the study’s significance, its implications for policy, and actionable interventions to address systemic barriers. To maintain conciseness, this section focuses on key takeaways, while a more detailed discussion of potential solutions including policy recommendations is provided under the "Potential Interventions & Policy Recommendations" subsection in the Discussion. 13. Please, add titles to the subsections, such as "Study Limitations." I also suggest adding subtitles in the discussion section, to maked more organized. We have added the subsections in the Discussion as suggested by the reviewer. Based on the concerns raised in the previous comments, here are some suggestions to accomplish the questionaire of the peer-review form: 1. Current literature? → Partly Authors may expand the literature review to better contextualize findings within existing and recent (not more than 5 years old) research on gender disparities in STEM, particularly in the UAE and similar regions. A recent study looking to challenges impacting advancing in leadership positions in higher education in the UAE, demonstrate similar challenges to women in STEM fields. It highlights the deficiencies in current policies and gender biases that hinders women’s progression in these roles. Similarly, it illustrates the need for training and initiative to ensure work-life balance ( Reference: Al-Naqbi SA, Aderibigbe SA. Advancing Women’s Leadership in United Arab Emirates Higher Education: Perspectives from Emirati Women. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1002) The importance of initiatives that offer training in STEM and improve institutional policies to reduce gender disparity is highlighted in initiatives of University of Sharjah ( reference : Bani-Issa W, Abu Talib M, Timmins F, Brenner M, Alameddine M. Developments in empowering and supporting women's role in scientific research in the United Arab Emirates. J Adv Nurs. 2024 Jan;80(1):4-7. doi: 10.1111/jan.15731. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37309056.) 2. Appropriate design: → Partly Please, justify why qualitative analysis was not used. If feasible, include some qualitative analysis to capture nuanced insights from open-ended responses. Also, clarify why the mixed-gender approach was necessary or consider conducting a gender-comparative analysis to provide additional insights. 3. Sufficient details of methods → Partly Authors can clearly describe how the internal consistency was measured across diverse question types and justify the approach taken. Also, provide the actual calculated sample size and explain whether data collection stopped at 165 participants or if any adjustments were made. 4. Appropriateness of statistical analysis → I would say partly Please, expand the description of Table 2, detailing the significance of the results and how they support the study’s conclusions. Provide rationale for the selection of the statistical methods. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. The data analysis section has also been revised to include reason for the choice of the chosen statistical method. 5. Reproducibility → Partly Authors may include information about how many questions were eliminated and why, as this is important for reproducibility. If possible, provide a supplementary file with anonymized responses for open uestions or summaries of key themes. The first part was answered in point 4 at the beginning of this document and a text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX]. 6. Adequate conclusions → Partly Discuss potential interventions or policy recommendations based on the findings. Authors may address how organizations or policymakers could use these insights to mitigate gender-based challenges in STEM. Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the conclusion emphasizing the need and implementation of organizational policies to reduce the gender-based biases in STEM. Please also refer to the response to comment # 12. I hope these comments are useful to you! Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Reviewer 1 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid responses on the challenges individuals face in staying in STEM fields. 62% of the respondents were men. I propose that the article's authors consider my following comments, if they consider it relevant: 1. My biggest concern is: If the study focuses on women, why not wait until the expected number of female responses was collected? I do not disregard the fact that men also face workplace inequities in STEM. However, would it be worthwhile to frame the study as a comparative analysis between men and women? Such an approach could generate insights into addressing diversity and finding common ground to eliminate inequities. Thank you for this thoughtful comment and valuable suggestion. Our original intent was indeed to focus primarily on women’s retention and progression in STEM fields and also understand issue from both gender view. However, during the data collection with the snowball sampling strategy, a significant proportion of responses came from male participants working in the same fields and institutions. Rather than excluding these responses, we decided to include them to enrich the analysis and allow for comparative insights between genders. We acknowledge the limitation regarding the smaller proportion of female respondents (38%) and have now elaborated on this issue in the Limitations section of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we agree with the reviewer that the comparative perspective strengthens the study by shedding light on the differing experiences of men and women in STEM, which may help in identifying shared and divergent challenges. Therefore, we have reframed parts of the analysis and discussion to reflect this comparative lens more clearly. 2. On page 3, it is mentioned: "(consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1)." Please report exactly how many were open-ended and how many were closed-ended. Thank you very much for highlighting this point. Upon reviewing the final version of the survey tool, we realized that the description in the manuscript was outdated and inaccurately stated the number of items. The survey actually consisted of 44 questions , not 28 as originally mentioned. Of these: 6 were open-ended questions , which invited participants to share their personal experiences, insights, or suggestions (e.g., questions 3, 11, 14, 22, 43, and 44). 38 were closed-ended questions , covering a range of formats including Likert scales, multiple-choice, true/false, and rating scale items. We have corrected this information in the revised manuscript to ensure full transparency and accuracy in describing the methodology. We truly appreciate your attention to detail—it helped us improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. 3. If the surveys contained open-ended questions, why were the responses not analyzed using thematic analysis or coding? For example, Question 22 asks about perceived barriers, yet these are not described in the main manuscript, nor are Questions 43 and 44. Thank you for this excellent observation. You are absolutely right that analyzing the open-ended responses—particularly for Question 22—would add valuable depth and context to our findings. Initially, our focus was on presenting the quantitative results of the study, and we did not include a formal thematic analysis of the qualitative items due to space constraints and our emphasis on the statistical findings. However, we fully agree that the rich narratives provided by respondents offer important insights into the lived experiences of women in STEM. In response to your suggestion, we have now conducted a thematic analysis of the responses to Question 22. The open-ended responses were independently reviewed and coded by two researchers using an inductive approach. Five main themes emerged: Themes from Reported Barriers to Women's Advancement in STEM (Q22 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Gender Bias in Hiring, Pay, and Promotion Systemic discrimination where women receive unequal treatment in hiring, compensation, promotion, or leadership access. "His salary was higher", HR replied that he is a man, he has to support the family." "Men promoted or given responsibility when CV of the female employee is clearly superior" 2. Motherhood and Family Responsibilities as Career Barriers Women's roles as mothers and caregivers negatively affect their career progress or continuity. "Female pharmacists, might request later maternity leave."‌ "Career gaps due to childbearing" do not affect men."‌ 3. Lack of Institutional Support and Flexibility Inadequate policies or accommodations for women's needs, such as flexible hours, childcare, or post-maternity reintegration. "Inflexible workloads, giving women more opportunities to have part-time hours, online meetings, etc."‌ "Lack of support after maternity leave."‌ 4. Cultural and Social Norms Reinforcing Gender Roles Societal and workplace norms that reinforce traditional female roles and diminish professional credibility or opportunities. "Women are questioned about their commitment if they want both a family and a career."‌ "Cultural need for women to manage household and childcare."‌ 5. Exclusion from Networks, Resources, and Fair Processes Limited access to support, networks, or fair processes due to male-dominated environments, favoritism, or underrepresentation. "Female faculty did not receive lab space,male did."‌ "Not a single woman in university management."‌ Thematic Analysis - Women Leaving Science Careers Early ( Q43 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Family Responsibilities and Caregiving Burden The overwhelming burden of caregiving duties (e.g., children, elderly, spouse) often forces women to prioritize home over career. "Family commitments. Family responsibilities. Care for children and the elderly." 2. Lack of Work-Life Balance and Flexibility Rigid work hours, long shifts, and inability to adjust roles to accommodate personal life lead to burnout and early career exit. "Inflexibility for work time. Workload. Long hours and heavy work responsibilities." 3. Poor Workplace Culture and Mental Health Strain Toxic work environments, stress, mental exhaustion, and lack of appreciation contribute to resignation. "Poor work environment… they choose mental health over money and career advancement." 4. Gender Discrimination and Lack of Career Progression Inequity in promotions, lack of recognition, and systemic bias demoralize women and block advancement. "Lack of promotion. Working hard but suppressed by male colleagues. Bias and discrimination." 5. Structural and Policy Gaps (e.g., parental leave, support systems) Lack of institutional support such as maternity leave, reintegration policies, and job security for women scientists. "Insufficient parental leave policies. Difficult to relaunch career after maternity. Lack of stable positions." When asked about their recommendations to the employer and government on how to improve the employment and career environment for women scientists, respondents recommended improving the work environment for women scientists by introducing flexible working hours, remote work options, and part-time roles to support work-life balance. They emphasized the need for better childcare support, including on-site daycare and extended paid maternity leave, along with policies that facilitate reintegration after childbirth. Calls were also made for equitable hiring, promotion, and leadership opportunities, more mentorship and female role models, and increased recognition through fair pay and dedicated research funding. Institutional reforms, such as clear gender equality policies and accountability measures, were seen as essential. These themes have now been incorporated into the revised results and discussion sections of the manuscript. We are grateful for your feedback, which helped us enhance the richness of our findings. 4. How was Cronbach’s alpha calculated for questions of different types? For instance, Question 2 follows a Likert scale, while others are Yes/No, multiple-choice, or true/false. I believe the authors should better explain how the survey results were analyzed. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that multiple-choice, or true/false questions are not applicable in the reliability analysis carried out using Cronbach’s alpha. In this analysis, a reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). The following text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX] A reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). In details, the attitude subscale was found to have questionable reliability (9 items (Q23.1 to Q23.9); α = .63), the satisfaction subscale indicated acceptable reliability (8 items (Q28 to Q35); α = .78), and the retention subscale reached excellent reliability (7 items (Q36 to Q41); α = .92). Most items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted from the subscale. The one exception to this was item Q23.1 in attitude subscale “ It is important to take action to increase the involvement of women and girls in STEM fields. ”, which would increase the alpha to α = 0.73 if deleted. Therefore, removal of this item was considered. Furthermore, one question in the retention subscale “ Please rate the importance of Paid leadership development related to your workplace (7 stars are the highest score and 1 star is the lowest score) ” was removed during pilot phase validity due to difficulty in comprehending the question by the respondents. 5. It is necessary to present information about the number of questions eliminated during the pilot phase. This question has been answered in 4 above and is reflected in the manuscript. 6. The sample size calculation is presented, but the result is not stated. Is it 165? Did the sampling stop at participant 165? Thank you for highlighting this important point. We acknowledge that the explanation around the sample size calculation and final number of participants was not fully clear in the original manuscript. Using the WHO sample size calculator for cross-sectional studies—with a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%—the calculated sample size was 384. However, we were only able to collect 165 valid responses during the data collection period (November 2022 to July 2023). This shortfall was largely due to the sensitive nature of the topic, which likely impacted participation rates, particularly among female professionals in STEM fields. We fully recognize this as a limitation and have now explicitly stated both the calculated sample size and the final number of responses in the revised manuscript. We have also expanded the limitations section to reflect how this may affect the generalizability of the findings. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which helped us improve the transparency and completeness of our methods reporting. Below is sentence added to the limitation: “The study did not reach the initially calculated sample size, primarily due to the sensitivity of the topic, which may affect the representativeness and generalizability of the findings.” 7. Some acronyms, such as MIT or WHO, need to be defined. Ensure that all acronyms are introduced with their full form when first mentioned. In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all acronyms—including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and World Health Organization (WHO)—are now introduced in full upon first mention. This has been corrected throughout the revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the readability of the paper. 8. Can the authors identify relationships between respondents’ characteristics and their answers? For example, if a participant is a woman and also has children, does this intensify the challenges they face? We agree that exploring associations between the various challenges and participants’ characteristics, such as number of children, would be valuable. However, this is not within the scope of our study, and may not be appropriate given our small to medium sample size, especially when further split across categories of participants’ characteristics. Such analysis was only performed for the main outcome variable — “experience of gender inequality” — as presented in Table 2. 9. I am unsure whether the phrase "bread-earners" is appropriate for this manuscript. Suggest to change to economic provider or principal financial supporter. 10. Table 2 should be explained in more detail. Explicitly describe what the statistical test results mean. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. 11. Most of the text in the results section repeats what is already observed in the figures and tables. While this is not entirely incorrect, it might be better to explain more about the meaning or implications of these results. Otherwise, I suggest merging some figures into one (placing them side by side) to save space and improve readability, for example, Figures 8 and 9. We agree with this valuable observation by the reviewer. Hence, we have merged Figures 8 and 9 to save space and improve readability. 12. The authors' conclusion is very limited. For instance, it is a fact that, in many parts of the world, women still face challenges in STEM fields. But what does this new study suggest to counteract the already well-known systemic challenges? What is the main contribution of this work? Please, highlight the significance of this work. The conclusion has been revised to emphasize the study’s significance, its implications for policy, and actionable interventions to address systemic barriers. To maintain conciseness, this section focuses on key takeaways, while a more detailed discussion of potential solutions including policy recommendations is provided under the "Potential Interventions & Policy Recommendations" subsection in the Discussion. 13. Please, add titles to the subsections, such as "Study Limitations." I also suggest adding subtitles in the discussion section, to maked more organized. We have added the subsections in the Discussion as suggested by the reviewer. Based on the concerns raised in the previous comments, here are some suggestions to accomplish the questionaire of the peer-review form: 1. Current literature? → Partly Authors may expand the literature review to better contextualize findings within existing and recent (not more than 5 years old) research on gender disparities in STEM, particularly in the UAE and similar regions. A recent study looking to challenges impacting advancing in leadership positions in higher education in the UAE, demonstrate similar challenges to women in STEM fields. It highlights the deficiencies in current policies and gender biases that hinders women’s progression in these roles. Similarly, it illustrates the need for training and initiative to ensure work-life balance ( Reference: Al-Naqbi SA, Aderibigbe SA. Advancing Women’s Leadership in United Arab Emirates Higher Education: Perspectives from Emirati Women. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1002) The importance of initiatives that offer training in STEM and improve institutional policies to reduce gender disparity is highlighted in initiatives of University of Sharjah ( reference : Bani-Issa W, Abu Talib M, Timmins F, Brenner M, Alameddine M. Developments in empowering and supporting women's role in scientific research in the United Arab Emirates. J Adv Nurs. 2024 Jan;80(1):4-7. doi: 10.1111/jan.15731. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37309056.) 2. Appropriate design: → Partly Please, justify why qualitative analysis was not used. If feasible, include some qualitative analysis to capture nuanced insights from open-ended responses. Also, clarify why the mixed-gender approach was necessary or consider conducting a gender-comparative analysis to provide additional insights. 3. Sufficient details of methods → Partly Authors can clearly describe how the internal consistency was measured across diverse question types and justify the approach taken. Also, provide the actual calculated sample size and explain whether data collection stopped at 165 participants or if any adjustments were made. 4. Appropriateness of statistical analysis → I would say partly Please, expand the description of Table 2, detailing the significance of the results and how they support the study’s conclusions. Provide rationale for the selection of the statistical methods. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. The data analysis section has also been revised to include reason for the choice of the chosen statistical method. 5. Reproducibility → Partly Authors may include information about how many questions were eliminated and why, as this is important for reproducibility. If possible, provide a supplementary file with anonymized responses for open uestions or summaries of key themes. The first part was answered in point 4 at the beginning of this document and a text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX]. 6. Adequate conclusions → Partly Discuss potential interventions or policy recommendations based on the findings. Authors may address how organizations or policymakers could use these insights to mitigate gender-based challenges in STEM. Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the conclusion emphasizing the need and implementation of organizational policies to reduce the gender-based biases in STEM. Please also refer to the response to comment # 12. I hope these comments are useful to you! Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 28 Oct 2025 Saeeda Almarzooqi , Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates 28 Oct 2025 Author Response Reviewer 1 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study ... Continue reading Reviewer 1 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid responses on the challenges individuals face in staying in STEM fields. 62% of the respondents were men. I propose that the article's authors consider my following comments, if they consider it relevant: 1. My biggest concern is: If the study focuses on women, why not wait until the expected number of female responses was collected? I do not disregard the fact that men also face workplace inequities in STEM. However, would it be worthwhile to frame the study as a comparative analysis between men and women? Such an approach could generate insights into addressing diversity and finding common ground to eliminate inequities. Thank you for this thoughtful comment and valuable suggestion. Our original intent was indeed to focus primarily on women’s retention and progression in STEM fields and also understand issue from both gender view. However, during the data collection with the snowball sampling strategy, a significant proportion of responses came from male participants working in the same fields and institutions. Rather than excluding these responses, we decided to include them to enrich the analysis and allow for comparative insights between genders. We acknowledge the limitation regarding the smaller proportion of female respondents (38%) and have now elaborated on this issue in the Limitations section of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we agree with the reviewer that the comparative perspective strengthens the study by shedding light on the differing experiences of men and women in STEM, which may help in identifying shared and divergent challenges. Therefore, we have reframed parts of the analysis and discussion to reflect this comparative lens more clearly. 2. On page 3, it is mentioned: "(consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1)." Please report exactly how many were open-ended and how many were closed-ended. Thank you very much for highlighting this point. Upon reviewing the final version of the survey tool, we realized that the description in the manuscript was outdated and inaccurately stated the number of items. The survey actually consisted of 44 questions , not 28 as originally mentioned. Of these: 6 were open-ended questions , which invited participants to share their personal experiences, insights, or suggestions (e.g., questions 3, 11, 14, 22, 43, and 44). 38 were closed-ended questions , covering a range of formats including Likert scales, multiple-choice, true/false, and rating scale items. We have corrected this information in the revised manuscript to ensure full transparency and accuracy in describing the methodology. We truly appreciate your attention to detail—it helped us improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. 3. If the surveys contained open-ended questions, why were the responses not analyzed using thematic analysis or coding? For example, Question 22 asks about perceived barriers, yet these are not described in the main manuscript, nor are Questions 43 and 44. Thank you for this excellent observation. You are absolutely right that analyzing the open-ended responses—particularly for Question 22—would add valuable depth and context to our findings. Initially, our focus was on presenting the quantitative results of the study, and we did not include a formal thematic analysis of the qualitative items due to space constraints and our emphasis on the statistical findings. However, we fully agree that the rich narratives provided by respondents offer important insights into the lived experiences of women in STEM. In response to your suggestion, we have now conducted a thematic analysis of the responses to Question 22. The open-ended responses were independently reviewed and coded by two researchers using an inductive approach. Five main themes emerged: Themes from Reported Barriers to Women's Advancement in STEM (Q22 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Gender Bias in Hiring, Pay, and Promotion Systemic discrimination where women receive unequal treatment in hiring, compensation, promotion, or leadership access. "His salary was higher", HR replied that he is a man, he has to support the family." "Men promoted or given responsibility when CV of the female employee is clearly superior" 2. Motherhood and Family Responsibilities as Career Barriers Women's roles as mothers and caregivers negatively affect their career progress or continuity. "Female pharmacists, might request later maternity leave."‌ "Career gaps due to childbearing" do not affect men."‌ 3. Lack of Institutional Support and Flexibility Inadequate policies or accommodations for women's needs, such as flexible hours, childcare, or post-maternity reintegration. "Inflexible workloads, giving women more opportunities to have part-time hours, online meetings, etc."‌ "Lack of support after maternity leave."‌ 4. Cultural and Social Norms Reinforcing Gender Roles Societal and workplace norms that reinforce traditional female roles and diminish professional credibility or opportunities. "Women are questioned about their commitment if they want both a family and a career."‌ "Cultural need for women to manage household and childcare."‌ 5. Exclusion from Networks, Resources, and Fair Processes Limited access to support, networks, or fair processes due to male-dominated environments, favoritism, or underrepresentation. "Female faculty did not receive lab space,male did."‌ "Not a single woman in university management."‌ Thematic Analysis - Women Leaving Science Careers Early ( Q43 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Family Responsibilities and Caregiving Burden The overwhelming burden of caregiving duties (e.g., children, elderly, spouse) often forces women to prioritize home over career. "Family commitments. Family responsibilities. Care for children and the elderly." 2. Lack of Work-Life Balance and Flexibility Rigid work hours, long shifts, and inability to adjust roles to accommodate personal life lead to burnout and early career exit. "Inflexibility for work time. Workload. Long hours and heavy work responsibilities." 3. Poor Workplace Culture and Mental Health Strain Toxic work environments, stress, mental exhaustion, and lack of appreciation contribute to resignation. "Poor work environment… they choose mental health over money and career advancement." 4. Gender Discrimination and Lack of Career Progression Inequity in promotions, lack of recognition, and systemic bias demoralize women and block advancement. "Lack of promotion. Working hard but suppressed by male colleagues. Bias and discrimination." 5. Structural and Policy Gaps (e.g., parental leave, support systems) Lack of institutional support such as maternity leave, reintegration policies, and job security for women scientists. "Insufficient parental leave policies. Difficult to relaunch career after maternity. Lack of stable positions." When asked about their recommendations to the employer and government on how to improve the employment and career environment for women scientists, respondents recommended improving the work environment for women scientists by introducing flexible working hours, remote work options, and part-time roles to support work-life balance. They emphasized the need for better childcare support, including on-site daycare and extended paid maternity leave, along with policies that facilitate reintegration after childbirth. Calls were also made for equitable hiring, promotion, and leadership opportunities, more mentorship and female role models, and increased recognition through fair pay and dedicated research funding. Institutional reforms, such as clear gender equality policies and accountability measures, were seen as essential. These themes have now been incorporated into the revised results and discussion sections of the manuscript. We are grateful for your feedback, which helped us enhance the richness of our findings. 4. How was Cronbach’s alpha calculated for questions of different types? For instance, Question 2 follows a Likert scale, while others are Yes/No, multiple-choice, or true/false. I believe the authors should better explain how the survey results were analyzed. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that multiple-choice, or true/false questions are not applicable in the reliability analysis carried out using Cronbach’s alpha. In this analysis, a reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). The following text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX] A reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). In details, the attitude subscale was found to have questionable reliability (9 items (Q23.1 to Q23.9); α = .63), the satisfaction subscale indicated acceptable reliability (8 items (Q28 to Q35); α = .78), and the retention subscale reached excellent reliability (7 items (Q36 to Q41); α = .92). Most items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted from the subscale. The one exception to this was item Q23.1 in attitude subscale “ It is important to take action to increase the involvement of women and girls in STEM fields. ”, which would increase the alpha to α = 0.73 if deleted. Therefore, removal of this item was considered. Furthermore, one question in the retention subscale “ Please rate the importance of Paid leadership development related to your workplace (7 stars are the highest score and 1 star is the lowest score) ” was removed during pilot phase validity due to difficulty in comprehending the question by the respondents. 5. It is necessary to present information about the number of questions eliminated during the pilot phase. This question has been answered in 4 above and is reflected in the manuscript. 6. The sample size calculation is presented, but the result is not stated. Is it 165? Did the sampling stop at participant 165? Thank you for highlighting this important point. We acknowledge that the explanation around the sample size calculation and final number of participants was not fully clear in the original manuscript. Using the WHO sample size calculator for cross-sectional studies—with a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%—the calculated sample size was 384. However, we were only able to collect 165 valid responses during the data collection period (November 2022 to July 2023). This shortfall was largely due to the sensitive nature of the topic, which likely impacted participation rates, particularly among female professionals in STEM fields. We fully recognize this as a limitation and have now explicitly stated both the calculated sample size and the final number of responses in the revised manuscript. We have also expanded the limitations section to reflect how this may affect the generalizability of the findings. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which helped us improve the transparency and completeness of our methods reporting. Below is sentence added to the limitation: “The study did not reach the initially calculated sample size, primarily due to the sensitivity of the topic, which may affect the representativeness and generalizability of the findings.” 7. Some acronyms, such as MIT or WHO, need to be defined. Ensure that all acronyms are introduced with their full form when first mentioned. In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all acronyms—including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and World Health Organization (WHO)—are now introduced in full upon first mention. This has been corrected throughout the revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the readability of the paper. 8. Can the authors identify relationships between respondents’ characteristics and their answers? For example, if a participant is a woman and also has children, does this intensify the challenges they face? We agree that exploring associations between the various challenges and participants’ characteristics, such as number of children, would be valuable. However, this is not within the scope of our study, and may not be appropriate given our small to medium sample size, especially when further split across categories of participants’ characteristics. Such analysis was only performed for the main outcome variable — “experience of gender inequality” — as presented in Table 2. 9. I am unsure whether the phrase "bread-earners" is appropriate for this manuscript. Suggest to change to economic provider or principal financial supporter. 10. Table 2 should be explained in more detail. Explicitly describe what the statistical test results mean. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. 11. Most of the text in the results section repeats what is already observed in the figures and tables. While this is not entirely incorrect, it might be better to explain more about the meaning or implications of these results. Otherwise, I suggest merging some figures into one (placing them side by side) to save space and improve readability, for example, Figures 8 and 9. We agree with this valuable observation by the reviewer. Hence, we have merged Figures 8 and 9 to save space and improve readability. 12. The authors' conclusion is very limited. For instance, it is a fact that, in many parts of the world, women still face challenges in STEM fields. But what does this new study suggest to counteract the already well-known systemic challenges? What is the main contribution of this work? Please, highlight the significance of this work. The conclusion has been revised to emphasize the study’s significance, its implications for policy, and actionable interventions to address systemic barriers. To maintain conciseness, this section focuses on key takeaways, while a more detailed discussion of potential solutions including policy recommendations is provided under the "Potential Interventions & Policy Recommendations" subsection in the Discussion. 13. Please, add titles to the subsections, such as "Study Limitations." I also suggest adding subtitles in the discussion section, to maked more organized. We have added the subsections in the Discussion as suggested by the reviewer. Based on the concerns raised in the previous comments, here are some suggestions to accomplish the questionaire of the peer-review form: 1. Current literature? → Partly Authors may expand the literature review to better contextualize findings within existing and recent (not more than 5 years old) research on gender disparities in STEM, particularly in the UAE and similar regions. A recent study looking to challenges impacting advancing in leadership positions in higher education in the UAE, demonstrate similar challenges to women in STEM fields. It highlights the deficiencies in current policies and gender biases that hinders women’s progression in these roles. Similarly, it illustrates the need for training and initiative to ensure work-life balance ( Reference: Al-Naqbi SA, Aderibigbe SA. Advancing Women’s Leadership in United Arab Emirates Higher Education: Perspectives from Emirati Women. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1002) The importance of initiatives that offer training in STEM and improve institutional policies to reduce gender disparity is highlighted in initiatives of University of Sharjah ( reference : Bani-Issa W, Abu Talib M, Timmins F, Brenner M, Alameddine M. Developments in empowering and supporting women's role in scientific research in the United Arab Emirates. J Adv Nurs. 2024 Jan;80(1):4-7. doi: 10.1111/jan.15731. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37309056.) 2. Appropriate design: → Partly Please, justify why qualitative analysis was not used. If feasible, include some qualitative analysis to capture nuanced insights from open-ended responses. Also, clarify why the mixed-gender approach was necessary or consider conducting a gender-comparative analysis to provide additional insights. 3. Sufficient details of methods → Partly Authors can clearly describe how the internal consistency was measured across diverse question types and justify the approach taken. Also, provide the actual calculated sample size and explain whether data collection stopped at 165 participants or if any adjustments were made. 4. Appropriateness of statistical analysis → I would say partly Please, expand the description of Table 2, detailing the significance of the results and how they support the study’s conclusions. Provide rationale for the selection of the statistical methods. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. The data analysis section has also been revised to include reason for the choice of the chosen statistical method. 5. Reproducibility → Partly Authors may include information about how many questions were eliminated and why, as this is important for reproducibility. If possible, provide a supplementary file with anonymized responses for open uestions or summaries of key themes. The first part was answered in point 4 at the beginning of this document and a text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX]. 6. Adequate conclusions → Partly Discuss potential interventions or policy recommendations based on the findings. Authors may address how organizations or policymakers could use these insights to mitigate gender-based challenges in STEM. Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the conclusion emphasizing the need and implementation of organizational policies to reduce the gender-based biases in STEM. Please also refer to the response to comment # 12. I hope these comments are useful to you! Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Reviewer 1 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid responses on the challenges individuals face in staying in STEM fields. 62% of the respondents were men. I propose that the article's authors consider my following comments, if they consider it relevant: 1. My biggest concern is: If the study focuses on women, why not wait until the expected number of female responses was collected? I do not disregard the fact that men also face workplace inequities in STEM. However, would it be worthwhile to frame the study as a comparative analysis between men and women? Such an approach could generate insights into addressing diversity and finding common ground to eliminate inequities. Thank you for this thoughtful comment and valuable suggestion. Our original intent was indeed to focus primarily on women’s retention and progression in STEM fields and also understand issue from both gender view. However, during the data collection with the snowball sampling strategy, a significant proportion of responses came from male participants working in the same fields and institutions. Rather than excluding these responses, we decided to include them to enrich the analysis and allow for comparative insights between genders. We acknowledge the limitation regarding the smaller proportion of female respondents (38%) and have now elaborated on this issue in the Limitations section of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we agree with the reviewer that the comparative perspective strengthens the study by shedding light on the differing experiences of men and women in STEM, which may help in identifying shared and divergent challenges. Therefore, we have reframed parts of the analysis and discussion to reflect this comparative lens more clearly. 2. On page 3, it is mentioned: "(consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1)." Please report exactly how many were open-ended and how many were closed-ended. Thank you very much for highlighting this point. Upon reviewing the final version of the survey tool, we realized that the description in the manuscript was outdated and inaccurately stated the number of items. The survey actually consisted of 44 questions , not 28 as originally mentioned. Of these: 6 were open-ended questions , which invited participants to share their personal experiences, insights, or suggestions (e.g., questions 3, 11, 14, 22, 43, and 44). 38 were closed-ended questions , covering a range of formats including Likert scales, multiple-choice, true/false, and rating scale items. We have corrected this information in the revised manuscript to ensure full transparency and accuracy in describing the methodology. We truly appreciate your attention to detail—it helped us improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. 3. If the surveys contained open-ended questions, why were the responses not analyzed using thematic analysis or coding? For example, Question 22 asks about perceived barriers, yet these are not described in the main manuscript, nor are Questions 43 and 44. Thank you for this excellent observation. You are absolutely right that analyzing the open-ended responses—particularly for Question 22—would add valuable depth and context to our findings. Initially, our focus was on presenting the quantitative results of the study, and we did not include a formal thematic analysis of the qualitative items due to space constraints and our emphasis on the statistical findings. However, we fully agree that the rich narratives provided by respondents offer important insights into the lived experiences of women in STEM. In response to your suggestion, we have now conducted a thematic analysis of the responses to Question 22. The open-ended responses were independently reviewed and coded by two researchers using an inductive approach. Five main themes emerged: Themes from Reported Barriers to Women's Advancement in STEM (Q22 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Gender Bias in Hiring, Pay, and Promotion Systemic discrimination where women receive unequal treatment in hiring, compensation, promotion, or leadership access. "His salary was higher", HR replied that he is a man, he has to support the family." "Men promoted or given responsibility when CV of the female employee is clearly superior" 2. Motherhood and Family Responsibilities as Career Barriers Women's roles as mothers and caregivers negatively affect their career progress or continuity. "Female pharmacists, might request later maternity leave."‌ "Career gaps due to childbearing" do not affect men."‌ 3. Lack of Institutional Support and Flexibility Inadequate policies or accommodations for women's needs, such as flexible hours, childcare, or post-maternity reintegration. "Inflexible workloads, giving women more opportunities to have part-time hours, online meetings, etc."‌ "Lack of support after maternity leave."‌ 4. Cultural and Social Norms Reinforcing Gender Roles Societal and workplace norms that reinforce traditional female roles and diminish professional credibility or opportunities. "Women are questioned about their commitment if they want both a family and a career."‌ "Cultural need for women to manage household and childcare."‌ 5. Exclusion from Networks, Resources, and Fair Processes Limited access to support, networks, or fair processes due to male-dominated environments, favoritism, or underrepresentation. "Female faculty did not receive lab space,male did."‌ "Not a single woman in university management."‌ Thematic Analysis - Women Leaving Science Careers Early ( Q43 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Family Responsibilities and Caregiving Burden The overwhelming burden of caregiving duties (e.g., children, elderly, spouse) often forces women to prioritize home over career. "Family commitments. Family responsibilities. Care for children and the elderly." 2. Lack of Work-Life Balance and Flexibility Rigid work hours, long shifts, and inability to adjust roles to accommodate personal life lead to burnout and early career exit. "Inflexibility for work time. Workload. Long hours and heavy work responsibilities." 3. Poor Workplace Culture and Mental Health Strain Toxic work environments, stress, mental exhaustion, and lack of appreciation contribute to resignation. "Poor work environment… they choose mental health over money and career advancement." 4. Gender Discrimination and Lack of Career Progression Inequity in promotions, lack of recognition, and systemic bias demoralize women and block advancement. "Lack of promotion. Working hard but suppressed by male colleagues. Bias and discrimination." 5. Structural and Policy Gaps (e.g., parental leave, support systems) Lack of institutional support such as maternity leave, reintegration policies, and job security for women scientists. "Insufficient parental leave policies. Difficult to relaunch career after maternity. Lack of stable positions." When asked about their recommendations to the employer and government on how to improve the employment and career environment for women scientists, respondents recommended improving the work environment for women scientists by introducing flexible working hours, remote work options, and part-time roles to support work-life balance. They emphasized the need for better childcare support, including on-site daycare and extended paid maternity leave, along with policies that facilitate reintegration after childbirth. Calls were also made for equitable hiring, promotion, and leadership opportunities, more mentorship and female role models, and increased recognition through fair pay and dedicated research funding. Institutional reforms, such as clear gender equality policies and accountability measures, were seen as essential. These themes have now been incorporated into the revised results and discussion sections of the manuscript. We are grateful for your feedback, which helped us enhance the richness of our findings. 4. How was Cronbach’s alpha calculated for questions of different types? For instance, Question 2 follows a Likert scale, while others are Yes/No, multiple-choice, or true/false. I believe the authors should better explain how the survey results were analyzed. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that multiple-choice, or true/false questions are not applicable in the reliability analysis carried out using Cronbach’s alpha. In this analysis, a reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). The following text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX] A reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). In details, the attitude subscale was found to have questionable reliability (9 items (Q23.1 to Q23.9); α = .63), the satisfaction subscale indicated acceptable reliability (8 items (Q28 to Q35); α = .78), and the retention subscale reached excellent reliability (7 items (Q36 to Q41); α = .92). Most items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted from the subscale. The one exception to this was item Q23.1 in attitude subscale “ It is important to take action to increase the involvement of women and girls in STEM fields. ”, which would increase the alpha to α = 0.73 if deleted. Therefore, removal of this item was considered. Furthermore, one question in the retention subscale “ Please rate the importance of Paid leadership development related to your workplace (7 stars are the highest score and 1 star is the lowest score) ” was removed during pilot phase validity due to difficulty in comprehending the question by the respondents. 5. It is necessary to present information about the number of questions eliminated during the pilot phase. This question has been answered in 4 above and is reflected in the manuscript. 6. The sample size calculation is presented, but the result is not stated. Is it 165? Did the sampling stop at participant 165? Thank you for highlighting this important point. We acknowledge that the explanation around the sample size calculation and final number of participants was not fully clear in the original manuscript. Using the WHO sample size calculator for cross-sectional studies—with a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%—the calculated sample size was 384. However, we were only able to collect 165 valid responses during the data collection period (November 2022 to July 2023). This shortfall was largely due to the sensitive nature of the topic, which likely impacted participation rates, particularly among female professionals in STEM fields. We fully recognize this as a limitation and have now explicitly stated both the calculated sample size and the final number of responses in the revised manuscript. We have also expanded the limitations section to reflect how this may affect the generalizability of the findings. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which helped us improve the transparency and completeness of our methods reporting. Below is sentence added to the limitation: “The study did not reach the initially calculated sample size, primarily due to the sensitivity of the topic, which may affect the representativeness and generalizability of the findings.” 7. Some acronyms, such as MIT or WHO, need to be defined. Ensure that all acronyms are introduced with their full form when first mentioned. In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all acronyms—including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and World Health Organization (WHO)—are now introduced in full upon first mention. This has been corrected throughout the revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the readability of the paper. 8. Can the authors identify relationships between respondents’ characteristics and their answers? For example, if a participant is a woman and also has children, does this intensify the challenges they face? We agree that exploring associations between the various challenges and participants’ characteristics, such as number of children, would be valuable. However, this is not within the scope of our study, and may not be appropriate given our small to medium sample size, especially when further split across categories of participants’ characteristics. Such analysis was only performed for the main outcome variable — “experience of gender inequality” — as presented in Table 2. 9. I am unsure whether the phrase "bread-earners" is appropriate for this manuscript. Suggest to change to economic provider or principal financial supporter. 10. Table 2 should be explained in more detail. Explicitly describe what the statistical test results mean. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. 11. Most of the text in the results section repeats what is already observed in the figures and tables. While this is not entirely incorrect, it might be better to explain more about the meaning or implications of these results. Otherwise, I suggest merging some figures into one (placing them side by side) to save space and improve readability, for example, Figures 8 and 9. We agree with this valuable observation by the reviewer. Hence, we have merged Figures 8 and 9 to save space and improve readability. 12. The authors' conclusion is very limited. For instance, it is a fact that, in many parts of the world, women still face challenges in STEM fields. But what does this new study suggest to counteract the already well-known systemic challenges? What is the main contribution of this work? Please, highlight the significance of this work. The conclusion has been revised to emphasize the study’s significance, its implications for policy, and actionable interventions to address systemic barriers. To maintain conciseness, this section focuses on key takeaways, while a more detailed discussion of potential solutions including policy recommendations is provided under the "Potential Interventions & Policy Recommendations" subsection in the Discussion. 13. Please, add titles to the subsections, such as "Study Limitations." I also suggest adding subtitles in the discussion section, to maked more organized. We have added the subsections in the Discussion as suggested by the reviewer. Based on the concerns raised in the previous comments, here are some suggestions to accomplish the questionaire of the peer-review form: 1. Current literature? → Partly Authors may expand the literature review to better contextualize findings within existing and recent (not more than 5 years old) research on gender disparities in STEM, particularly in the UAE and similar regions. A recent study looking to challenges impacting advancing in leadership positions in higher education in the UAE, demonstrate similar challenges to women in STEM fields. It highlights the deficiencies in current policies and gender biases that hinders women’s progression in these roles. Similarly, it illustrates the need for training and initiative to ensure work-life balance ( Reference: Al-Naqbi SA, Aderibigbe SA. Advancing Women’s Leadership in United Arab Emirates Higher Education: Perspectives from Emirati Women. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1002) The importance of initiatives that offer training in STEM and improve institutional policies to reduce gender disparity is highlighted in initiatives of University of Sharjah ( reference : Bani-Issa W, Abu Talib M, Timmins F, Brenner M, Alameddine M. Developments in empowering and supporting women's role in scientific research in the United Arab Emirates. J Adv Nurs. 2024 Jan;80(1):4-7. doi: 10.1111/jan.15731. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37309056.) 2. Appropriate design: → Partly Please, justify why qualitative analysis was not used. If feasible, include some qualitative analysis to capture nuanced insights from open-ended responses. Also, clarify why the mixed-gender approach was necessary or consider conducting a gender-comparative analysis to provide additional insights. 3. Sufficient details of methods → Partly Authors can clearly describe how the internal consistency was measured across diverse question types and justify the approach taken. Also, provide the actual calculated sample size and explain whether data collection stopped at 165 participants or if any adjustments were made. 4. Appropriateness of statistical analysis → I would say partly Please, expand the description of Table 2, detailing the significance of the results and how they support the study’s conclusions. Provide rationale for the selection of the statistical methods. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. The data analysis section has also been revised to include reason for the choice of the chosen statistical method. 5. Reproducibility → Partly Authors may include information about how many questions were eliminated and why, as this is important for reproducibility. If possible, provide a supplementary file with anonymized responses for open uestions or summaries of key themes. The first part was answered in point 4 at the beginning of this document and a text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX]. 6. Adequate conclusions → Partly Discuss potential interventions or policy recommendations based on the findings. Authors may address how organizations or policymakers could use these insights to mitigate gender-based challenges in STEM. Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the conclusion emphasizing the need and implementation of organizational policies to reduce the gender-based biases in STEM. Please also refer to the response to comment # 12. I hope these comments are useful to you! Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 3 VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 20 Dec 2024 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 3 (revision) 21 Jan 26 read Version 2 (revision) 21 Oct 25 read read read Version 1 20 Dec 24 read read Patricia Vázquez-Villegas , Tecnologico de Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico Merryn McKinnon , Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Maria F Vieira , University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Vázquez-Villegas P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 29 Jan 2026 | for Version 3 Patricia Vázquez-Villegas , Tecnologico de Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico 0 Views copyright © 2026 Vázquez-Villegas P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The authors took all my comments into account. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Engineering Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Vázquez-Villegas P. Peer Review Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.193455.r451859) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v3#referee-response-451859 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Vieira M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 06 Jan 2026 | for Version 2 Maria F Vieira , University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Vieira M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The topic is timely, policy-relevant, and well aligned with global discussions on gender equity in STEM. While the manuscript has improved substantially from version 1, it still falls short of its potential due to limitations in framing, methodological clarity, and analytical depth. Overall, the paper is acceptable, but not yet compelling. Sample composition and representativeness The findings are interpreted broadly as representative of “STEM in the UAE,” yet the sample predominantly reflects senior, academic STEM environments. I recommend narrowing the scope of the claims more explicitly to academic and research-intensive STEM settings. In addition, sample-related limitations should be moved from a general paragraph into a clearly labeled Study limitations subsection to improve transparency and coherence. Clarify methods A short methodological clarification paragraph is needed to explicitly address: the calculated target sample size versus the achieved sample size, where the full survey instrument can be accessed (e.g., appendix or extended data), and how internal consistency was assessed across mixed item types. In particular, the rationale for combining Likert-scale, binary, and categorical items in Cronbach’s alpha calculations remains insufficiently justified and should be clarified. Results are descriptive but under-interpreted Much of the Results section closely mirrors the figures and tables, with limited analytical interpretation. While Figures 2–7 are well designed, the accompanying text primarily describes what differs rather than why those differences matter. I suggest emphasizing effect sizes and key contrasts rather than percentages alone, and reducing redundancy between text and figures. Some figures could be merged or moved to supplementary materials. As a specific example, adding the frequency of theme occurrences to Table 4 would strengthen the link between the qualitative findings and the Discussion, and would better support recommendations regarding the most impactful interventions. Contribution undersold in the Discussion and Conclusion The Discussion and Conclusion would benefit from a clearer articulation of the study’s contribution. Specifically, the authors should state more explicitly: what this study adds beyond confirming well-documented gender biases in STEM, and why the UAE context provides analytically meaningful insights (e.g., its multicultural workforce and policy environment). Minor amendments Define “UAE” as United Arab Emirates at first mention. Clearly state the research question(s). On page 5, remove the paragraph immediately preceding Table 1, as this information is repeated on page 6. In Table 4, clarify whether the supporting quotes are illustrative examples or verbatim participant quotes. If the latter, anonymized identifiers (e.g., Participant 1, Participant 2) should be included. Several figures lack fully self-contained captions (e.g., gender color coding in Figure 4; scope and interpretation in Figure 7). Some statements in the Discussion refer to “research has shown” without immediate citations. Minor grammatical and typographical errors remain and should be corrected. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Yes Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Gender equity in STEM I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Vieira MF. Peer Review Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188356.r439455) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v2#referee-response-439455 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vázquez-Villegas P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 28 Nov 2025 | for Version 2 Patricia Vázquez-Villegas , Tecnologico de Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vázquez-Villegas P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions I thank the authors for considering my suggestions to improve their document. Now it seems more equilibrated. However, I have some more comments for you. 1. I believe that now that they have conducted a qualitative analysis, they can improve their abstract to reflect the new results. 2. I think there is a missing line before this “- see extended data 1) was divided into three sections: demographic, attitudes questions, and the Andrews and Withey job” 3. Consider revising the figures and table captions and write self-explanatory names for the Figures and tables. For example, “Figure 7. Support needed by females and males to thrive in STEM.” The figure also shows male responses, but the title does not clearly explain what we can see. 4. In Fig. 4, for example, one cannot tell whether the blue color is for males or females. 5. Was Fig. 1 answered only by women? What about males? What are the most influential factors for them to pursue a STEM career? 6. Please include a reference to the WHO calculator for cross-sectional studies, the equation, or the calculation result. Integrate the “Sample size calculation” into the Study population section. 7. Could you please indicate in the text where the questionnaire is? Is it in an Appendix? Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Engineering Education I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 21 Jan 2026 Saeeda Almarzooqi, Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your constructive and thoughtful feedback on Version 2 of our manuscript. We appreciate the time you have taken to review the revisions, and we are pleased to address the remaining points you have highlighted. Q1 .I believe that now that they have conducted a qualitative analysis, they can improve their abstract to reflect the new results. Response: The abstract has been revised to incorporate key findings from the qualitative analysis, mentioning the identified outcomes and participant recommendations. Q2. I think there is a missing line before this “- see extended data 1) was divided into three sections: demographic, attitude questions, and the Andrews and Withey job.” Response: Thank you for spotting the error. The sentence structure in the Methods section has been corrected for clarity and flow. Q3. Consider revising the figures and table captions, and write self-explanatory names for the Figures and tables. For example, “Figure 7. Support needed by females and males to thrive in STEM.” The figure also shows male responses, but the title does not clearly explain what we can see. Response: Figure and table captions have been revised wherever needed to provide clear, descriptive titles that explicitly state what data is presented and for which groups. Q4. In Fig. 4, for example, one cannot tell whether the blue color is for males or females. Response: We apologize for this lack of clarity. The figure has been updated to include a definitive legend within the graph itself, clearly labeling which color represents male and which represents female respondents. Q 5. Was Fig. 1 answered only by women? What about males? What are the most influential factors for them to pursue a STEM career? Response: The reviewer is correct. Figure 1 was based on a filter applied only to female respondents, as described in the accompanying text. For clarity and comparison, the figure has been updated, including male participation. The text was also updated, including the new data from male participants. Q 6. Please include a reference to the WHO calculator for cross-sectional studies, the equation, or the calculation result. Integrate the “Sample size calculation” into the Study population section. Response: A citation for the WHO tool has been added. Integrated the “Sample size calculation” into the Study population section. Q7. Could you please indicate in the text where the questionnaire is? Is it in an Appendix? Response: The location is now explicitly stated in the text: "The full questionnaire is provided as Extended Data 1." Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions. We believe these revisions have further strengthened the manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance throughout the review process. Kind regards, Prof Saeeda AlMarzooqi View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Vázquez-Villegas P. Peer Review Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188356.r425643) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v2#referee-response-425643 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 McKinnon M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Nov 2025 | for Version 2 Merryn McKinnon , Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 0 Views copyright © 2025 McKinnon M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Thank you to the authors for their thoughtful responses to suggested amendments. These have mostly been addressed. I am happy for the paper to be indexed however would request the authors do make some minor adjustments. Table 1 - the clarifying note of what constitutes 'other Asians' as a respondent nationality has been added underneath the table, which is appreciated, however it hasn't actually been 'linked' to anything in the table. I would recommend an asterisk or similar at the category which is then included with the descriptor e.g. Other Asians* and then under the table, *Includes participants... The paragraph prior to the conclusions still contains sentences stating "research has shown..." without any references included. This has not been addressed. Some minor spelling/grammar and typographical errors appear. Finally, the authors may wish to reiterate in the conclusion the universality of their findings and the need to address the embedded bias in the structures, systems and norms of STEM worldwide. Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise gender in STEM I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 21 Jan 2026 Saeeda Almarzooqi, Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your constructive and thoughtful feedback on Version 2 of our manuscript. We appreciate the time you have taken to review the revisions, and we are pleased to address the remaining points you have highlighted. Table 1 – Clarifying Note for “Other Asians.” We have now incorporated an asterisk directly within the table to clearly link the category “Other Asians*” with the explanatory note. The corresponding footnote has been placed directly beneath the table and now reads: “*Other Asians refers to participants from various Asian countries, excluding UAE nationals”. Paragraph before the Conclusion – Missing References Thank you for pointing out the unreferenced statements. We have revised this paragraph by adding an appropriate citation for the statement beginning with “research has shown…”, Spelling, Grammar, and Typographical Corrections We have thoroughly rechecked the manuscript and corrected all minor spelling, grammar, and typographical errors. Conclusion – Reinforcing Universality of Findings and Addressing Structural Bias As suggested, we have strengthened the conclusion by adding the following sentences-to address the global relevance and universality of the findings, and systemic and structural biases embedded within STEM environments worldwide. “Although the scope of this study is limited to the UAE, the identified bias patterns and structural restrictions are consistent with those observed internationally. Addressing these concerns requires working together globally so that the deep-rooted biases found in STEM systems and practices can be removed”. Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable suggestions. We believe these revisions have further strengthened the manuscript, and we are grateful for your guidance throughout the review process. Kind regards, Prof Saeeda AlMarzooqi View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern McKinnon M. Peer Review Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.188356.r425642) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v2#referee-response-425642 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 McKinnon M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Aug 2025 | for Version 1 Merryn McKinnon , Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 0 Views copyright © 2025 McKinnon M. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful however would benefit from a little more specificity. The statistics about the number of women graduating in STEM fields in the UAE provides part of the picture. What is the employment rate for women in computer science and engineering in the UAE? Globally these fields tend to have much lower proportions - how does the UAE compare to other countries? (It may be doing better!). Many years ago (circa 2010), in at least one UAE university, health and science were only offered to women while men were expected to study business, HR and finance. Is this split consistent across all institutions and did it still apply in 2022? The lit review also doesn't provide any background to what factors will be asked about or a brief overview of the barriers to retention and progression already identified in myriad studies. This comes in the discussion, which is arguably a bit too late. There is also a unique opportunity in this study in that it offers a perspective from many different nationalities. The multicultural nature of the Emirati society and workforce is not something that would be necessarily known by readers. It provides an even more interesting context within which to discuss the results so it should be covered - even briefly - here. Results - figures 2 and 3 could be combined as could figs 8 and 9. It isn't clear in figs 8 and 9 if respondents feel they already have these and this is what they think is important OR if these are elements that respondents are missing. Discussion - a lot of the elements discussed here likely should have been raised in the literature review. The cited junior biomedical researchers study - is that based in the UAE or elsewhere? The final paragraph before the conclusion talks about "research has shown" but doesn't cite any - it should. What this paper doesn't discuss, and arguably should, is the universality of these results. These are people from a range of different cultural backgrounds working within the UAE. Each respondent brings their own cultural norms to their work, which has its own cultural norms. And the findings here resonate with studies from around the world. There is something about gender in STEM that transcends culture and geography. This paper shows this in microcosm but doesn't make it prominent. It should. Minor edits - fifth para - some references need to replace numbers (6 and 9?) Para 6 - 'toolkit developed by some investigators' - is this still referring to the Casad et al paper or others? Please clarify/cite accordingly. Table 1 - 'other asians' could be made more specific as could the description of 'other' employers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise gender in STEM I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 27 Sep 2025 Saeeda Almarzooqi, Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates Approved With Reservations This paper outlines a study exploring the factors affecting the retention and progression of women in STEM careers in the UAE using a cross-sectional survey. The context provided is useful, however would benefit from a little more specificity. The statistics about the number of women graduating in STEM fields in the UAE provides part of the picture. What is the employment rate for women in computer science and engineering in the UAE? Globally these fields tend to have much lower proportions - how does the UAE compare to other countries? (It may be doing better!). Many years ago (circa 2010), in at least one UAE university, health and science were only offered to women while men were expected to study business, HR and finance. Is this split consistent across all institutions and did it still apply in 2022? The lit review also doesn't provide any background to what factors will be asked about or a brief overview of the barriers to retention and progression already identified in myriad studies. This comes in the discussion, which is arguably a bit too late. There is also a unique opportunity in this study in that it offers a perspective from many different nationalities. The multicultural nature of the Emirati society and workforce is not something that would be necessarily known by readers. It provides an even more interesting context within which to discuss the results so it should be covered - even briefly - here. Results - figures 2 and 3 could be combined as could figs 8 and 9. It isn't clear in figs 8 and 9 if respondents feel they already have these and this is what they think is important OR if these are elements that respondents are missing. Discussion - a lot of the elements discussed here likely should have been raised in the literature review. Response : We have now integrated the summary of key findings in the revised Introduction/literature review section of the manuscript. The cited junior biomedical researchers study - is that based in the UAE or elsewhere? Response: The study was conducted in the United States, and used the data from two New England biomedical research programs administered by the Medical Foundation Division of Health Resources in Action. We have now clarified the setting (United States) of the study in the revised manuscript. The final paragraph before the conclusion talks about "research has shown" but doesn't cite any - it should. Response: We have now provided the relevant citations to the statements in the revised manuscript. What this paper doesn't discuss, and arguably should, is the universality of these results. These are people from a range of different cultural backgrounds working within the UAE. Each respondent brings their own cultural norms to their work, which has its own cultural norms. And the findings here resonate with studies from around the world. There is something about gender in STEM that transcends culture and geography. This paper shows this in microcosm but doesn't make it prominent. It should. Response: We have now added a paragraph in the Discussion section addressing this point. We discuss how our results, derived from a uniquely multicultural context in the UAE, align with and reinforce findings from Western, Eastern, and other cultural settings. This new text argues that this convergence of evidence suggests a pervasive, trans-cultural pattern of gender bias in STEM, potentially pointing to deeper, field-specific mechanisms. We believe this revision significantly strengthens the paper's contribution and broadens its impact, and we are grateful for the suggestion. Minor edits - fifth para - some references need to replace numbers (6 and 9?) Para 6 - 'toolkit developed by some investigators' - is this still referring to the Casad et al paper or others? Please clarify/cite accordingly. Table 1 - 'other asians' could be made more specific as could the description of 'other' employers. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Yes Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern McKinnon M. Peer Review Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r354235) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1#referee-response-354235 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vázquez-Villegas P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 21 Mar 2025 | for Version 1 Patricia Vázquez-Villegas , Tecnologico de Monterrey, Nuevo León, Mexico 0 Views copyright © 2025 Vázquez-Villegas P. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid responses on the challenges individuals face in staying in STEM fields. 62% of the respondents were men. I propose that the article's authors consider my following comments, if they consider it relevant: 1. My biggest concern is: If the study focuses on women, why not wait until the expected number of female responses was collected? I do not disregard the fact that men also face workplace inequities in STEM. However, would it be worthwhile to frame the study as a comparative analysis between men and women? Such an approach could generate insights into addressing diversity and finding common ground to eliminate inequities. 2. On page 3, it is mentioned: "(consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1)." Please report exactly how many were open-ended and how many were closed-ended. 3. If the surveys contained open-ended questions, why were the responses not analyzed using thematic analysis or coding? For example, Question 22 asks about perceived barriers, yet these are not described in the main manuscript, nor are Questions 43 and 44. 4. How was Cronbach’s alpha calculated for questions of different types? For instance, Question 2 follows a Likert scale, while others are Yes/No, multiple-choice, or true/false. I believe the authors should better explain how the survey results were analyzed. 5. It is necessary to present information about the number of questions eliminated during the pilot phase. 6. The sample size calculation is presented, but the result is not stated. Is it 165? Did the sampling stop at participant 165? 7. Some acronyms, such as MIT or WHO, need to be defined. Ensure that all acronyms are introduced with their full form when first mentioned. 8. Can the authors identify relationships between respondents’ characteristics and their answers? For example, if a participant is a woman and also has children, does this intensify the challenges they face? 9. I am unsure whether the phrase "bread-earners" is appropriate for this manuscript. 10. Table 2 should be explained in more detail. Explicitly describe what the statistical test results mean. 11. Most of the text in the results section repeats what is already observed in the figures and tables. While this is not entirely incorrect, it might be better to explain more about the meaning or implications of these results. Otherwise, I suggest merging some figures into one (placing them side by side) to save space and improve readability, for example, Figures 8 and 9. 12. The authors' conclusion is very limited. For instance, it is a fact that, in many parts of the world, women still face challenges in STEM fields. But what does this new study suggest to counteract the already well-known systemic challenges? What is the main contribution of this work? Please, highlight the significance of this work. 13. Please, add titles to the subsections, such as "Study Limitations." I also suggest adding subtitles in the discussion section, to maked more organized. Based on the concerns raised in the previous comments, here are some suggestions to accomplish the questionaire of the peer-review form: 1. Current literature? → Partly Authors may expand the literature review to better contextualize findings within existing and recent (not more than 5 years old) research on gender disparities in STEM, particularly in the UAE and similar regions. 2. Appropriate desig: → Partly Please, justify why qualitative analysis was not used. If feasible, include some qualitative analysis to capture nuanced insights from open-ended responses. Also, clarify why the mixed-gender approach was necessary or consider conducting a gender-comparative analysis to provide additional insights. 3. Sufficient details of methods → Partly Authors can clearly describe how the internal consistency was measured across diverse question types and justify the approach taken. Also, provide the actual calculated sample size and explain whether data collection stopped at 165 participants or if any adjustments were made. 4. Appropriateness of statistical analysis → I would say partly Please, expand the description of Table 2, detailing the significance of the results and how they support the study’s conclusions. Provide rationale for the selection of the statistical methods. 5. Reproducibility → Partly Authors may include information about how many questions were eliminated and why, as this is important for reproducibility. If possible, provide a supplementary file with anonymized responses for open uestions or summaries of key themes. 6. Adequate conclusions → Partly Discuss potential interventions or policy recommendations based on the findings. Authors may address how organizations or policymakers could use these insights to mitigate gender-based challenges in STEM. I hope these comments are useful to you! Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise STEM education, education for sustainability, continuing education. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 28 Oct 2025 Saeeda Almarzooqi, Pathology, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates Reviewer 1 The study demonstrates an interesting approach to obtaining information regarding the challenges faced by female graduates in STEM fields in the UAE. The authors conducted a cross-sectional study by distributing surveys using the snowball sampling method. They collected 165 valid responses on the challenges individuals face in staying in STEM fields. 62% of the respondents were men. I propose that the article's authors consider my following comments, if they consider it relevant: 1. My biggest concern is: If the study focuses on women, why not wait until the expected number of female responses was collected? I do not disregard the fact that men also face workplace inequities in STEM. However, would it be worthwhile to frame the study as a comparative analysis between men and women? Such an approach could generate insights into addressing diversity and finding common ground to eliminate inequities. Thank you for this thoughtful comment and valuable suggestion. Our original intent was indeed to focus primarily on women’s retention and progression in STEM fields and also understand issue from both gender view. However, during the data collection with the snowball sampling strategy, a significant proportion of responses came from male participants working in the same fields and institutions. Rather than excluding these responses, we decided to include them to enrich the analysis and allow for comparative insights between genders. We acknowledge the limitation regarding the smaller proportion of female respondents (38%) and have now elaborated on this issue in the Limitations section of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we agree with the reviewer that the comparative perspective strengthens the study by shedding light on the differing experiences of men and women in STEM, which may help in identifying shared and divergent challenges. Therefore, we have reframed parts of the analysis and discussion to reflect this comparative lens more clearly. 2. On page 3, it is mentioned: "(consisting of 28 open and closed-ended questions - see extended data 1)." Please report exactly how many were open-ended and how many were closed-ended. Thank you very much for highlighting this point. Upon reviewing the final version of the survey tool, we realized that the description in the manuscript was outdated and inaccurately stated the number of items. The survey actually consisted of 44 questions , not 28 as originally mentioned. Of these: 6 were open-ended questions , which invited participants to share their personal experiences, insights, or suggestions (e.g., questions 3, 11, 14, 22, 43, and 44). 38 were closed-ended questions , covering a range of formats including Likert scales, multiple-choice, true/false, and rating scale items. We have corrected this information in the revised manuscript to ensure full transparency and accuracy in describing the methodology. We truly appreciate your attention to detail—it helped us improve the clarity and completeness of the manuscript. 3. If the surveys contained open-ended questions, why were the responses not analyzed using thematic analysis or coding? For example, Question 22 asks about perceived barriers, yet these are not described in the main manuscript, nor are Questions 43 and 44. Thank you for this excellent observation. You are absolutely right that analyzing the open-ended responses—particularly for Question 22—would add valuable depth and context to our findings. Initially, our focus was on presenting the quantitative results of the study, and we did not include a formal thematic analysis of the qualitative items due to space constraints and our emphasis on the statistical findings. However, we fully agree that the rich narratives provided by respondents offer important insights into the lived experiences of women in STEM. In response to your suggestion, we have now conducted a thematic analysis of the responses to Question 22. The open-ended responses were independently reviewed and coded by two researchers using an inductive approach. Five main themes emerged: Themes from Reported Barriers to Women's Advancement in STEM (Q22 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Gender Bias in Hiring, Pay, and Promotion Systemic discrimination where women receive unequal treatment in hiring, compensation, promotion, or leadership access. "His salary was higher", HR replied that he is a man, he has to support the family." "Men promoted or given responsibility when CV of the female employee is clearly superior" 2. Motherhood and Family Responsibilities as Career Barriers Women's roles as mothers and caregivers negatively affect their career progress or continuity. "Female pharmacists, might request later maternity leave."‌ "Career gaps due to childbearing" do not affect men."‌ 3. Lack of Institutional Support and Flexibility Inadequate policies or accommodations for women's needs, such as flexible hours, childcare, or post-maternity reintegration. "Inflexible workloads, giving women more opportunities to have part-time hours, online meetings, etc."‌ "Lack of support after maternity leave."‌ 4. Cultural and Social Norms Reinforcing Gender Roles Societal and workplace norms that reinforce traditional female roles and diminish professional credibility or opportunities. "Women are questioned about their commitment if they want both a family and a career."‌ "Cultural need for women to manage household and childcare."‌ 5. Exclusion from Networks, Resources, and Fair Processes Limited access to support, networks, or fair processes due to male-dominated environments, favoritism, or underrepresentation. "Female faculty did not receive lab space,male did."‌ "Not a single woman in university management."‌ Thematic Analysis - Women Leaving Science Careers Early ( Q43 Open-Ended Responses) Theme Definition Supporting Quotes 1. Family Responsibilities and Caregiving Burden The overwhelming burden of caregiving duties (e.g., children, elderly, spouse) often forces women to prioritize home over career. "Family commitments. Family responsibilities. Care for children and the elderly." 2. Lack of Work-Life Balance and Flexibility Rigid work hours, long shifts, and inability to adjust roles to accommodate personal life lead to burnout and early career exit. "Inflexibility for work time. Workload. Long hours and heavy work responsibilities." 3. Poor Workplace Culture and Mental Health Strain Toxic work environments, stress, mental exhaustion, and lack of appreciation contribute to resignation. "Poor work environment… they choose mental health over money and career advancement." 4. Gender Discrimination and Lack of Career Progression Inequity in promotions, lack of recognition, and systemic bias demoralize women and block advancement. "Lack of promotion. Working hard but suppressed by male colleagues. Bias and discrimination." 5. Structural and Policy Gaps (e.g., parental leave, support systems) Lack of institutional support such as maternity leave, reintegration policies, and job security for women scientists. "Insufficient parental leave policies. Difficult to relaunch career after maternity. Lack of stable positions." When asked about their recommendations to the employer and government on how to improve the employment and career environment for women scientists, respondents recommended improving the work environment for women scientists by introducing flexible working hours, remote work options, and part-time roles to support work-life balance. They emphasized the need for better childcare support, including on-site daycare and extended paid maternity leave, along with policies that facilitate reintegration after childbirth. Calls were also made for equitable hiring, promotion, and leadership opportunities, more mentorship and female role models, and increased recognition through fair pay and dedicated research funding. Institutional reforms, such as clear gender equality policies and accountability measures, were seen as essential. These themes have now been incorporated into the revised results and discussion sections of the manuscript. We are grateful for your feedback, which helped us enhance the richness of our findings. 4. How was Cronbach’s alpha calculated for questions of different types? For instance, Question 2 follows a Likert scale, while others are Yes/No, multiple-choice, or true/false. I believe the authors should better explain how the survey results were analyzed. We thank the reviewer for this comment. We agree that multiple-choice, or true/false questions are not applicable in the reliability analysis carried out using Cronbach’s alpha. In this analysis, a reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). The following text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX] A reliability analysis was carried out on three subscales namely: the attitude, satisfaction, retention subscales using Cronbach’s alpha (α). Overall, Cronbach’s alpha for the three subscales indicated the questionnaire reached good reliability (α = 0.88). In details, the attitude subscale was found to have questionable reliability (9 items (Q23.1 to Q23.9); α = .63), the satisfaction subscale indicated acceptable reliability (8 items (Q28 to Q35); α = .78), and the retention subscale reached excellent reliability (7 items (Q36 to Q41); α = .92). Most items appeared to be worthy of retention, resulting in a decrease in the alpha if deleted from the subscale. The one exception to this was item Q23.1 in attitude subscale “ It is important to take action to increase the involvement of women and girls in STEM fields. ”, which would increase the alpha to α = 0.73 if deleted. Therefore, removal of this item was considered. Furthermore, one question in the retention subscale “ Please rate the importance of Paid leadership development related to your workplace (7 stars are the highest score and 1 star is the lowest score) ” was removed during pilot phase validity due to difficulty in comprehending the question by the respondents. 5. It is necessary to present information about the number of questions eliminated during the pilot phase. This question has been answered in 4 above and is reflected in the manuscript. 6. The sample size calculation is presented, but the result is not stated. Is it 165? Did the sampling stop at participant 165? Thank you for highlighting this important point. We acknowledge that the explanation around the sample size calculation and final number of participants was not fully clear in the original manuscript. Using the WHO sample size calculator for cross-sectional studies—with a 95% confidence level, 5% margin of error, and an assumed response distribution of 50%—the calculated sample size was 384. However, we were only able to collect 165 valid responses during the data collection period (November 2022 to July 2023). This shortfall was largely due to the sensitive nature of the topic, which likely impacted participation rates, particularly among female professionals in STEM fields. We fully recognize this as a limitation and have now explicitly stated both the calculated sample size and the final number of responses in the revised manuscript. We have also expanded the limitations section to reflect how this may affect the generalizability of the findings. We appreciate your thoughtful feedback, which helped us improve the transparency and completeness of our methods reporting. Below is sentence added to the limitation: “The study did not reach the initially calculated sample size, primarily due to the sensitivity of the topic, which may affect the representativeness and generalizability of the findings.” 7. Some acronyms, such as MIT or WHO, need to be defined. Ensure that all acronyms are introduced with their full form when first mentioned. In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all acronyms—including Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and World Health Organization (WHO)—are now introduced in full upon first mention. This has been corrected throughout the revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate your attention to detail, which has helped us improve the readability of the paper. 8. Can the authors identify relationships between respondents’ characteristics and their answers? For example, if a participant is a woman and also has children, does this intensify the challenges they face? We agree that exploring associations between the various challenges and participants’ characteristics, such as number of children, would be valuable. However, this is not within the scope of our study, and may not be appropriate given our small to medium sample size, especially when further split across categories of participants’ characteristics. Such analysis was only performed for the main outcome variable — “experience of gender inequality” — as presented in Table 2. 9. I am unsure whether the phrase "bread-earners" is appropriate for this manuscript. Suggest to change to economic provider or principal financial supporter. 10. Table 2 should be explained in more detail. Explicitly describe what the statistical test results mean. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. 11. Most of the text in the results section repeats what is already observed in the figures and tables. While this is not entirely incorrect, it might be better to explain more about the meaning or implications of these results. Otherwise, I suggest merging some figures into one (placing them side by side) to save space and improve readability, for example, Figures 8 and 9. We agree with this valuable observation by the reviewer. Hence, we have merged Figures 8 and 9 to save space and improve readability. 12. The authors' conclusion is very limited. For instance, it is a fact that, in many parts of the world, women still face challenges in STEM fields. But what does this new study suggest to counteract the already well-known systemic challenges? What is the main contribution of this work? Please, highlight the significance of this work. The conclusion has been revised to emphasize the study’s significance, its implications for policy, and actionable interventions to address systemic barriers. To maintain conciseness, this section focuses on key takeaways, while a more detailed discussion of potential solutions including policy recommendations is provided under the "Potential Interventions & Policy Recommendations" subsection in the Discussion. 13. Please, add titles to the subsections, such as "Study Limitations." I also suggest adding subtitles in the discussion section, to maked more organized. We have added the subsections in the Discussion as suggested by the reviewer. Based on the concerns raised in the previous comments, here are some suggestions to accomplish the questionaire of the peer-review form: 1. Current literature? → Partly Authors may expand the literature review to better contextualize findings within existing and recent (not more than 5 years old) research on gender disparities in STEM, particularly in the UAE and similar regions. A recent study looking to challenges impacting advancing in leadership positions in higher education in the UAE, demonstrate similar challenges to women in STEM fields. It highlights the deficiencies in current policies and gender biases that hinders women’s progression in these roles. Similarly, it illustrates the need for training and initiative to ensure work-life balance ( Reference: Al-Naqbi SA, Aderibigbe SA. Advancing Women’s Leadership in United Arab Emirates Higher Education: Perspectives from Emirati Women. Education Sciences . 2024; 14(9):1002) The importance of initiatives that offer training in STEM and improve institutional policies to reduce gender disparity is highlighted in initiatives of University of Sharjah ( reference : Bani-Issa W, Abu Talib M, Timmins F, Brenner M, Alameddine M. Developments in empowering and supporting women's role in scientific research in the United Arab Emirates. J Adv Nurs. 2024 Jan;80(1):4-7. doi: 10.1111/jan.15731. Epub 2023 Jun 12. PMID: 37309056.) 2. Appropriate design: → Partly Please, justify why qualitative analysis was not used. If feasible, include some qualitative analysis to capture nuanced insights from open-ended responses. Also, clarify why the mixed-gender approach was necessary or consider conducting a gender-comparative analysis to provide additional insights. 3. Sufficient details of methods → Partly Authors can clearly describe how the internal consistency was measured across diverse question types and justify the approach taken. Also, provide the actual calculated sample size and explain whether data collection stopped at 165 participants or if any adjustments were made. 4. Appropriateness of statistical analysis → I would say partly Please, expand the description of Table 2, detailing the significance of the results and how they support the study’s conclusions. Provide rationale for the selection of the statistical methods. We thank you the reviewer for this valuable comment. The narrative for the results presented in Table 2 has been revised accordingly. The data analysis section has also been revised to include reason for the choice of the chosen statistical method. 5. Reproducibility → Partly Authors may include information about how many questions were eliminated and why, as this is important for reproducibility. If possible, provide a supplementary file with anonymized responses for open uestions or summaries of key themes. The first part was answered in point 4 at the beginning of this document and a text has been added now to the manuscript [Pages: XX-XX: Lines: XX-XX]. 6. Adequate conclusions → Partly Discuss potential interventions or policy recommendations based on the findings. Authors may address how organizations or policymakers could use these insights to mitigate gender-based challenges in STEM. Based on the reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised the conclusion emphasizing the need and implementation of organizational policies to reduce the gender-based biases in STEM. Please also refer to the response to comment # 12. I hope these comments are useful to you! Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? I cannot comment. A qualified statistician is required. Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. reply Respond Report a concern Vázquez-Villegas P. Peer Review Report For: Factors affecting women scientists’ retention and progress in STEM fields in the UAE: A cross-sectional study [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations] . F1000Research 2024, 13 :1539 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.170598.r369763) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1#referee-response-369763 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Factors affecting women scientists\’...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('T. Rahma A et al.'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539", templates : { twitter : "Factors affecting women scientists\’ retention and progress.... T. Rahma A et al., published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/13-1539/v1" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/155420/170598") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "170598"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "451860": 0, "451861": 0, "451859": 6, "356413": 0, "437310": 0, "356412": 0, "437311": 0, "356415": 0, "360767": 0, "356414": 0, "360766": 0, "437309": 0, "356409": 0, "356411": 0, "356410": 0, "360773": 0, "437318": 0, "360772": 0, "360775": 0, "437316": 0, "360774": 0, "437317": 0, "356417": 0, "360769": 0, "437314": 0, "356416": 0, "360768": 0, "437315": 0, "360771": 0, "437312": 0, "356418": 0, "360770": 0, "437313": 0, "445269": 0, "369757": 0, "369756": 0, "369759": 0, "369758": 0, "369765": 0, "369764": 0, "369766": 0, "369761": 0, "369760": 0, "369763": 29, "369762": 0, "382861": 0, "425870": 0, "382860": 0, "425871": 0, "382863": 0, "425868": 0, "382862": 0, "425869": 0, "382857": 0, "425866": 0, "382856": 0, "425867": 0, "382859": 0, "382858": 0, "358805": 0, "358804": 0, "358807": 0, "358806": 0, "382865": 0, "382864": 0, "425872": 0, "425873": 0, "358813": 0, "439454": 0, "358812": 0, "439455": 4, "439452": 0, "439453": 0, "358809": 0, "439450": 0, "358808": 0, "439451": 0, "358811": 0, "439448": 0, "358810": 0, "439449": 0, "439456": 0, "439457": 0, "425642": 18, "425643": 17, "354231": 0, "354230": 0, "354237": 0, "354236": 0, "354239": 0, "354238": 0, "354233": 0, "354232": 0, "354235": 17, "354234": 0, "396996": 0, "396995": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "fc4b1f1e-6fa1-455b-9ba6-07737efd7940"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });