Dear Dr. Alvis-Arrieta,

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.. 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.. 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.. 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 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 . 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 . 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 . 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. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows:

“The data are all contained within the manuscript and/or Supporting Information files, enter the following: 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.

3.  We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 1 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

4. 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.

5. 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.

Additional Editor Comments:

Please, adress all points raised by the reviewers, especially in matters of organization and references.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: The central claim of this paper is that there is evidence correlating specific factors with the maturity of women-led artisan enterprises in Cundinamarca, Colombia. Statistically significant factors include the entrepreneur’s age, whether the enterprise is the primary source of income, and the entrepreneur’s level of participation in professional associations. This paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on the Latin American artisan sector. Although the dataset focuses narrowly on Cundinamarca, the region’s proximity to Colombia’s capital positions it as a useful case study for craft communities near major urban centers. Given the scarcity of data-driven research on artisan enterprises, this paper—with minor revisions—will be of interest to researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in Latin America, the United States, and other majority-world contexts.

The authors effectively situate their research within broader scholarship on women’s entrepreneurship, with specific attention to Latin America, Colombia, and the artisan sector. I particularly appreciate the inclusion of Colombian scholars alongside international sources. That said, the References section requires attention. Several entries need copyediting (e.g., spacing before punctuation). Reference #11 contains a double period and lacks publisher information and a URL, despite the text being available online. Reference #1 incorrectly lists a 2026 publication date; the correct date appears to be 2023. Reference #8 is missing page numbers.

While econometrics is not my area of expertise, the data and conclusions are clearly presented and accessible beyond quantitative fields. For future research, I encourage comparative analyses across Colombian regions. The finding that distance from the capital is insignificant is intriguing and may reflect the geographic scope of the study. A comparison with regions such as Cauca or Vaupés could yield different conclusions.

Reviewer #2: The following issues need to be addressed:

1. In the introduction section, the sentence beginning "Women led entrepreneurship..." requires a supporting academic reference.

2. The sentence beginning "This type of entrepreneurship..." requires a supporting academic reference.

3. The sentence beginning "In Colombia, entrepreneurship has been prompted....." requires a supporting academic reference.

4. Please ensure that the manuscript is written in UK English rather than US. Please edit all instances. for example "programme" and not "program".

5. In Section 2, the sentence beginning "Women's entrepreneurship has...." requires a supporting academic reference.

6. The sentence beginning "Nonetheless, pronounced gender..." requires a supporting academic reference.

7. The sentence beginning "In these cases..." requires a supporting academic reference.

8. The sentence beginning "Several studies have identified..." requires a supporting academic reference.

9. In section 2.2 the sentence beginning "Across Latin America..." requires a supporting academic reference.

10. The sentence beginning "The women’s entrepreneurs..." requires a supporting academic reference.

11. In section 2.2, the countries in the sentence beginning "Several countries in the region..." needs to be put into alphabetical order.

12. In section 2.2, the sentence beginning "Regional profiles of...." requires a supporting academic reference.

13. In section 2.2, the sentence beginning "These conditions are further..." requires a supporting academic reference.

14. In section 2.2, the sentence beginning "In Colombia women's..." requires a supporting academic reference.

15. In section 2.2, the sentence beginning "The expansion of educational opportunities..." requires a supporting academic reference.

16. In section 2.3, the sentence beginning "In Latin America, many..." requires a supporting academic reference.

17. In section 2.3, the sentence beginning "The recent resurgence..." requires a supporting academic reference.

18. In section 2.3, the sentence beginning "Women led craft initiatives..." requires a supporting academic reference.

19. In section 2.3, the sentence beginning "This type of entrepreneurship...." requires a supporting academic reference.

20. In section 2.4. the sentene beginning "Entrepreneurial maturity represents..." requires a supporting academic reference.

21. In section 2.4, the sentence beginning "From an evolutionary perspective..." requires a supporting academic reference.

22. In section 2.4 the sentence beginning "Mature organizations typically..." requires a supporting academic reference.

23. The methodology section is a little brief and would benefit from some further academic underpinning to support the approach undertaken.

24. Figure 2 requires both x and y axis labels. I would put the OR amount on the graph rather than under the label.

25. Figure 3 also requires both X and Y axis labels.

26. I would reorganise the discussion and Conclusions sections. The Discussion section to clearly answer each hypothesis in contrast to the existing literature. Further develop the conclusions section to confirm how this study extends existing theory. Please directly identify how existing literature is further development Thereafter, a section on how this study extends existing implications for policy and practice would be useful followed by study limitations and further research opportunities.

**********

what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy..-->

Reviewer #1: Yes:Cynthia Lawson JaramilloCynthia Lawson JaramilloCynthia Lawson JaramilloCynthia Lawson Jaramillo

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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

WEAVING THE FUTURE: MATURITY AND KEY FACTORS IN WOMEN’S CULTURAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN COLOMBIA’S ARTISAN SECTOR

PONE-D-25-67330R1

Dear Dr. Alvis-Arrieta,

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  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  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):

Please, add your reviewers in the Acknowledgements section.

Reviewers' comments: