As a researcher familiar with both gender studies and disciplinary history in STEM education, I appreciate the thoughtful intention behind this review. However, I have a significant concern regarding the alignment between your stated inclusion criteria and the actual content of the review, which may affect the applicability and validity of your educational recommendations.
In Section 2, you clearly define the scope: the review focuses on male physicists and mathematicians “who usually appear in the syllabi of fundamental physics and mathematics subjects in Spain” (p. 5). This is a sound and practical boundary for ensuring that the examples are relevant and integrable into actual teaching. Yet, many of the allies discussed, such as Vito Volterra’s female disciples (Fabri, Freda, etc.), Laurent Schwartz, or even figures like Daniel Peña or Pedro Duque, are not standard curriculum figures in core Spanish undergraduate STEM syllabi. Some are quite niche in terms of historical coverage in foundational courses.
This discrepancy raises two critical questions:
How was the list of “usual” syllabus figures empirically determined? Was it based on an analysis of current Spanish university course guides, textbook indices, or a survey of instructors? Without a clear baseline, the selection risks being subjective and may not reflect what is actually “teachable” in the intended context.
If the goal is to provide relatable, curriculum-relevant role models, does the inclusion of figures unfamiliar to most students and teachers undermine the practical objective? The pedagogical impact relies on connecting known scientific content (laws, theorems, standard historical narratives) with ally narratives. If the scientific figure is themselves unfamiliar, the “ally” example becomes an isolated historical anecdote rather than a integrated teaching point.
This is not a minor oversight, as it touches the core of the paper’s utility. If the examples are not, in fact, drawn from the standard syllabus canon as claimed, then the recommendations for classroom integration become significantly harder to implement and the study’s contribution to “mainstreaming” gender perspectives in existing teaching is compromised.
Could you clarify the methodology used to ascertain which historical figures “usually appear” in Spanish fundamental syllabi? A brief explanation or reference to a syllabus analysis would strengthen the paper considerably. Alternatively, a refinement of the scope statement to better match the actual set of examples would improve methodological transparency.