Dear Dr. He,

Both reviews had positive comments on your manuscript, but further revisions are required, in order clarify the method used and the discussion the manuscript belongs to.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 25 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research .

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Support from the key research program of Anqing Normal University “Research on Determining Primary School Chinese Language Teaching Content Based on Text Style�SK202208ZD�”, the National Education Science Planning Ministry of Education Youth Project “The Classification of Interdisciplinary Programs in Education in China and America: An Event History Model. (EIA 220526)”, and the project of Talent of Education Law in Shanghai (2023JYFXR077) is gratefully acknowledged.”

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. PLOS ONE publication criteria require that the data presented in the manuscript must support the conclusions drawn, and submissions will be rejected if the interpretation of results is unjustified or inappropriate, so authors should avoid overstating their conclusions. We noted the following potentially overstated and/or unclear statements in the Results section that require revision:

Section 4.1.1:  "This change signifies significant progress in gender equality"

It is unclear whether this statement is supported by the presented results, as the observed change appears to be small and statistical significance is not reported.

Section 4.1.3:  "In contrast, the proportion of male characters has decreased to 48.58% in the 2023 edition, while the proportion of female characters has increased to 51.42% (see table 7), reflecting progress in gender equality."

We believe this may be an overstatement and would recommend rephrasing “reflecting progress in gender equality." to "which may reflect some progress in gender equality." or similar.

Section 4.2.1: "Firstly, the identities of female writers are more diverse, such as journalists, marine biologists, playwrights, theorists, scientists, publishing house editors, modern architects, fantasy novelists, etc. among the newly added female writers"

This statement is unclear, as it is unknown what this diversity is being compared against. For example, comparison groups could include male writers of the same textbook editions or female writers of previous editions.

Section 4.2.1:  "They demonstrate the independent spirit of modern women, break through the constraints of traditional roles, show the potential for self-expression and realization, and contribute to social change and civilization development".

This statement does not appear to be supported by the data presented.

Section 4.2.2 - "Regrettably, the 2023 edition of Chinese textbooks has omitted the text 'Face Changing' to circumvent the topic of gender equality, and no alternative texts with a similar theme have been provided".

This statement does not appear to be supported by citation, and more supported information regarding omitted text is needed.

Finally, PLOS ONE requires that the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. In this case, the manuscript requires editing for English grammar and usage as well as for typographical errors.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: [Title of the Manuscript]Progress and Stagnation: A Comparative Study of Gender Representation in Chinese

Textbooks for Junior High School between 2001 Edition and 2023 Edition

[Manuscript ID] PONE-D-25-05629

[Overall Evaluation]�

This manuscript discusses the use of frequency, expression, illustrations, and other methods to enhance the potential gender inequality in middle school Chinese language textbooks. By elevating the image and perspective of women in the textbooks, it aims to raise awareness of gender equality among young people and achieve future gender equality in society.

At present, in the research of Chinese textbooks, there are already analytical literature on character images and roles in Chinese texts, with more emphasis on the educational impact of positive typical characters in texts on students' growth; In the study of character illustrations in textbooks, more attention is paid to whether illustrations affect students' concentration, while there is currently little research on the impact of gender on characters in Chinese textbooks.

Advantages: 1. This manuscript provides a sensitive perspective on the analysis of the number, roles, professions, and other aspects related to women in Chinese and other language textbooks. It shows that the frequency of women's appearance in textbooks is not high, which also reflects a global issue of gender discrimination against women in life, career, personal values, and other aspects. This perspective is very valuable.

2. Whether the language is clear and the evaluation of research methods is appropriate, the data analysis is accurate, the results are reliable, and the charts are clear.

Improvement: There are some areas that need improvement before the manuscript can be considered for publication.

1. Current achievements and research directions related to Chinese language textbooks.

2. Adding constructive suggestions on improving the social status of women in textbooks to the theoretical framework can enhance the comprehensiveness and developability of the article.

[Conclusion]

In conclusion, this manuscript has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the field. With the suggested revisions, it could be suitable for publication in Plos One.

[Reviewer Name] Jiawei Shi

[Reviewer Affiliation] HUANGHE S&T UNIVERSITY

[Date of Review]2025.3.1

Reviewer #2: Dear Editor(s),

Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Progress and Stagnation: A Comparative Study of Gender Representation in Chinese Textbooks for Junior High School between 2001 Edition and 2023 Edition.” The study addresses an important and timely issue, contributing valuable insights into gender representation in educational materials over time.

The article employs a well-structured mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative content analysis with qualitative critical discourse analysis. The quantitative analysis is particularly rigorous, offering a systematic breakdown of key indicators such as the frequency of male and female authors, characters, and protagonists. The inclusion of specific data points, such as the increase in female authors from 8.30% in 2001 to 9.09% in 2023, strengthens the credibility of the findings. Additionally, the qualitative analysis provides depth by uncovering implicit gender biases, such as the portrayal of Marie Curie alongside her husband rather than independently. This dual-method approach enhances the study’s comprehensiveness and allows for a nuanced understanding of gender representation trends.

The study is highly relevant within both local and global contexts. Gender representation in textbooks remains a significant issue worldwide, and the manuscript effectively situates its findings within broader international discourse by referencing studies from multiple regions. The focus on Chinese language textbooks, used by approximately 200 million students, fills a critical gap in the literature and offers insights that have direct implications for educational policy. The discussion on policy implications, particularly in light of China’s national commitment to gender equality, is particularly compelling. The study provides a balanced perspective, highlighting both progress and persistent challenges in gender representation over two decades.

The manuscript effectively identifies positive developments, such as the increasing number of female authors and the improved gender balance in family roles. However, it also underscores concerning trends, including the continued underrepresentation of women in social and professional spheres and the persistence of gender stereotypes. The discussion of regression in female protagonist representation, from 19.05% in 2001 to 13.11% in 2023, is especially noteworthy. The study’s critical engagement with these issues adds depth to the analysis and highlights the need for continued reform.

Despite these strengths, the methodology section requires further elaboration to enhance the study’s transparency and reproducibility. The manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on the coding process, inter-coder reliability, or statistical tests used in the quantitative analysis. Similarly, the description of the critical discourse analysis approach lacks specificity. The authors mention an “improved CDA,” but it is unclear what modifications were made and how they were implemented.

The manuscript exhibits significant repetition, particularly in the Results and Discussion sections. Key points, such as the underrepresentation of women and the persistence of gender stereotypes, are reiterated multiple times without adding new insights. Additionally, the discussion of regression in gender representation is presented in multiple sections but would benefit from a more integrated analysis.

While the study references existing literature, the engagement with theoretical frameworks and global perspectives on gender representation in textbooks could be strengthened. The manuscript cites key scholars such as Sunderland and Beauvoir but does not fully incorporate theoretical discussions on how gender stereotypes influence students’ career aspirations and self-perception. Furthermore, drawing on global practices, such as UNESCO’s guidelines for gender-sensitive teaching materials, would provide a stronger foundation for the study’s policy recommendations.

The manuscript’s readability is hindered by long, complex sentences and occasional grammatical errors. For example, sentences such as “The present study conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of numerous core indicators, and found that with the improvement of gender awareness in China, an increase in the representation of women in the recent edition has been reflected in several key dimensions” could be revised for conciseness and readability.

The study would benefit from a more in-depth exploration of its practical implications for educational policy and practice. While the findings highlight gaps in gender representation, the manuscript does not provide concrete recommendations for textbook authors, policymakers, or educators. Additionally, the omission of texts addressing gender equality is noted, but the manuscript does not fully explore how this might influence students’ perceptions or what corrective actions could be taken.

Finally, the manuscript would be strengthened by a discussion of counterarguments and study limitations. The analysis attributes gender disparities in textbooks primarily to editorial bias but does not consider alternative explanations, such as broader societal trends or historical constraints on available materials. Additionally, the study focuses on only two editions of Chinese textbooks, limiting its ability to capture long-term trends comprehensively. Acknowledging these limitations and discussing potential biases in the coding and analysis process would enhance the study’s credibility and scholarly contribution.

Overall, the manuscript provides a valuable contribution to the study of gender representation in educational materials. Some revisions would enhance its overall quality and impact. I appreciate the opportunity to review this work and look forward to seeing its continued development.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Xiaoming Tian

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Dear Dr. He,

plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Review of the article entitled “Progress and Stagnation: A Comparative Study of Gender Representation in Chinese Textbooks for Junior High School between 2001 Edition and 2023 Edition”

The authors have made commendable progress in response to reviewer feedback. The manuscript demonstrates increased clarity in its methodological description and improved engagement with international policy standards. However, further enhancement is still needed in terms of methodological transparency (e.g., coding examples), theoretical integration (particularly educational and philosophical perspectives), and critical discussion of structural influences and limitations. Addressing these remaining issues will significantly strengthen the rigor and scholarly contribution of the manuscript. Here I list my detailed comments:

1. Methodology

First-round comment:

“Despite these strengths, the methodology section requires further elaboration to enhance the study’s transparency and reproducibility. The manuscript does not provide sufficient detail on the coding process, inter-coder reliability, or statistical tests used in the quantitative analysis. Similarly, the description of the critical discourse analysis approach lacks specificity. The authors mention an ‘improved CDA,’ but it is unclear what modifications were made and how they were implemented.”

Authors’ response and assessment:

The authors have taken steps to clarify the coding criteria in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. For instance, in Section 3.2.1 (“Coding criteria”), they specify that “protagonists are the core characters who drive the plot, excluding background characters” (lines 156–158). In Section 3.3.2 (“Data analysis”), the framework for analyzing family roles has been elaborated, adopting a tripartite model of “economic contribution/emotional support/decision-making leadership” (lines 202–205). These additions improve the clarity of the coding scheme.

However, the revision still falls short in two areas. First, the absence of concrete coding examples (e.g., a sample coding table illustrating gender role labeling for a specific text) undermines methodological transparency and limits reproducibility. Second, the application of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) remains vague. While Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework is referenced, the operationalization—particularly how “power relations” are identified and coded—has not been sufficiently detailed.

2. Theoretical Engagement

First-round comment:

“While the study references existing literature, the engagement with theoretical frameworks and global perspectives on gender representation in textbooks could be strengthened. The manuscript cites key scholars such as Sunderland and Beauvoir but does not fully incorporate theoretical discussions on how gender stereotypes influence students’ career aspirations and self-perception. Furthermore, drawing on global practices, such as UNESCO’s guidelines for gender-sensitive teaching materials, would provide a stronger foundation for the study’s policy recommendations.”

Authors’ response and assessment:

The authors have incorporated UNESCO’s Gender-Sensitive Textbook Guidelines in the policy recommendations section (lines 686–691), advocating for “balancing gender roles and reducing stereotypical descriptions.” This is a welcome addition.

Nonetheless, one important gap remains. While the manuscript initially referenced Beauvoir, the revised version misses the opportunity to engage in a deeper philosophical dialogue—for example, by connecting the “othering” of female characters in textbooks with Beauvoir’s concept of women as a socially constructed “second nature.” These missed opportunities weaken the theoretical foundation of the study.

3. Practical Implications

First-round comment:

“The study would benefit from a more in-depth exploration of its practical implications for educational policy and practice. While the findings highlight gaps in gender representation, the manuscript does not provide concrete recommendations for textbook authors, policymakers, or educators. Additionally, the omission of texts addressing gender equality is noted, but the manuscript does not fully explore how this might influence students’ perceptions or what corrective actions could be taken.”

Authors’ response and assessment:

The authors have addressed this point by offering specific suggestions in Chapter 6 (Conclusion). For instance, they recommend that textbook authors “design equal social roles, such as increasing the images of female scientists and engineers” (lines 679–680), and that policymakers “develop gender-sensitive teaching material guidelines and clarify gender equality assessment indicators” (lines 688–689). In Chapter 5 (Discussion), they also reflect on the removal of the text “Face Changing,” arguing that it deprives students of the opportunity for critical engagement with gender issues (lines 408–434).

Despite these improvements, the influence of omitted gender-equality texts on students’ cognitive development is still not sufficiently addressed. Incorporating insights from educational psychology could help elucidate the link between textual omission and the reinforcement of gender stereotypes, thus enhancing the empirical and practical relevance of the study’s claims.

4. Acknowledgment of Limitations and Counterarguments

First-round comment:

“Finally, the manuscript would be strengthened by a discussion of counterarguments and study limitations. The analysis attributes gender disparities in textbooks primarily to editorial bias but does not consider alternative explanations, such as broader societal trends or historical constraints on available materials. Additionally, the study focuses on only two editions of Chinese textbooks, limiting its ability to capture long-term trends comprehensively. Acknowledging these limitations and discussing potential biases in the coding and analysis process would enhance the study’s credibility and scholarly contribution.”

Authors’ response and assessment:

The authors now acknowledge in Chapter 6 (Conclusion) that analyzing only two editions restricts the longitudinal scope of the study. They recommend including additional editions in future research (lines 669–675). They also recognize the inherent subjectivity in the coding process and suggest adopting multi-coder strategies and reporting error indicators in future work.

However, a deeper engagement with alternative explanations is still missing. The manuscript briefly notes that “social and cultural traditions may have a greater impact on textbook content than editorial bias,” but this point is not fully developed.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Progress and Stagnation: A Comparative Study of Gender Representation in Chinese Textbooks for Junior High School between 2001 Edition and 2023 Edition

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. He,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Zahra Al-Khateeb, Ph.D

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

On behalf of Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD. 

Academic Editor, PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise. 

2. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Comments from the editorial office: 

PLOS ONE publication criteria require that the data presented in the manuscript must support the conclusions drawn, and submissions will be rejected if the interpretation of results is unjustified or inappropriate, so authors should avoid overstating their conclusions. We noted potentially overstated and/or unclear statements in the introduction and discussion sections that require revision. Please ensure all statements within the submission are appropriately supported by citations or the results presented in the manuscript.

For example:

Line 73-86: "China is an ancient country with the world-renowned Confucian culture. Confucianism has been traditionally valued in China to sustain a patriarchal society. Influenced by Confucian values, men are seen as representatives and inheritors of the family, while women are expected to marry into other families and continue their bloodline from the family they marry into. Therefore, men are encouraged to pursue careers, while women are required to take care of their husbands and children, look after their parents-in-law, and do laundry and cooking. The standard for measuring a woman's value is to be a "virtuous wife" to her husband's family. Housework is not recognized by society and lacks economic value. Men are authorities in the family domain, and their power is further strengthened and consolidated through gender division of labor in social life. This shows the "two-dimensional patriarchal system functioning in social and familial spheres" rooted in China [19]. Therefore, in ancient China, women were marginalized by society and their behavior and status were generally dominated by men"

Line 93-97: "Since 2000, the status of Chinese women has seen tremendous improvement. In universities, the proportion of female students exceeds 50%, and in hospitals, the percentage of female doctors is over 46%. Furthermore, women account for 35% to 38% of corporate board directors and supervisors, and constitute more than 50% of grassroots neighborhood committee members."

Line 554: "Gogchild" (This is a typo, as it should be "Dogchild")

Line 666-667: "however, there are few characters in Chinese textbooks that counter stereotypes."

Line 731-732: "The patriarchal gender norm holds that women should be the other in the eyes of men and obey the will of men"

We noted this concern throughout the manuscript, with the above serving as a few examples. Please carefully review the manuscript and revise the introduction, results and discussion sections to ensure that everything is clearly stated, all claims are well-supported by the data, and the tone is neutral.

Additional Editor Comments:

Kindly review the comments provided by the Editorial Office below.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: Dear editor,

Thank you for inviting me to review this manuscript for the third time. I truly appreciate your rigorous and thoughtful approach throughout this review process.

I have read the manuscript carefully and would also like to commend the authors for their careful revisions. The revised manuscript has adequately addressed all the concerns and suggestions I raised in my previous reviews. Therefore, I am pleased to endorse the publication of this article and would like to congratulate the authors in advance on its forthcoming acceptance and eventual publication.

Xiaoming

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Progress and Stagnation: A Comparative Study of Gender Representation in Chinese Language textbooks for Junior High School between 2001 Edition and 2023 Edition

PONE-D-25-05629R3

Dear Dr. He,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Rafael Galvão de Almeida, PhD.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: