A cross-sectional study of dental students perception of dental faculty gender differences.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate students' perceptions of differences in learning from faculty of different gender.
METHOD: This cross-sectional study involved pre-doctoral dental students (years 2 to 4) who had a simulation and/or clinical experience working with dental faculty for at least one year. Students completed a self-administered questionnaire with three sections: demographic, difference between faculty related to their knowledge, skill, critical thinking, acceptance of cultural differences, and students' preferences in working with faculty in specialty clinics.
RESULTS: A total of 136 students completed the survey (75.4% response rate). Participants were 52.6% women, 62.2% self-identified as Caucasian/White. Students reported that female faculty are more understanding (p = 0.001) and accepting of cultural differences (p<0.001) compared to male faculty (p<0.05). Students reported perceiving female faculty more as being a role model than male faculty (p = 0.034). When comparing male and female students, male student's perception of male faculty as a role model was significantly higher than female students (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in student's perceptions between male and female faculty in their knowledge, skills, compassion, critical thinking, providing feedback, communication skills, and grading (p>0.05). Caucasian/White students perceived female faculty as more encouraging for discussions and male faculty as more rigid/inflexible (p<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Students perceived female faculty as more understanding and culturally competent compared to male faculty. There were no significant differences in student's perceptions of male and female faculty in their knowledge, skills, compassion, critical thinking, feedback, communication skills, and grading. Students perceived female faculty as role models more than male faculty.

Introduction

The gender composition of the dental profession in the US has changed over the past two decades, with more females entering the field of dentistry. In 1978, only 11.2% of dental students were female compared to 50.5% in 2018–19 [1]. Female dentists accounted for 16% of working dentists in 2001, which increased to 33.4% in 2019 [2]. Although the number of female dentists increased, such an increase has not been reflected among dental faculty. According to the American Dental Education Association, the number of females in 2019 accounts for 40.5% of full-time and 35% of part-time dental faculty positions, with the highest rates in the Midwest regions [3]. Although women are more likely than men to choose academic careers, female dentists remain underrepresented in the academic workforce of the United States [4-6] It has been well-documented in medicine that mentors and role models can have an impact on different genders’ choices of a specific specialty over another [7, 8]. Gender disparity in choosing dental specialties and leadership roles is due to a lack of sufficient women role models and mentorship for young female dentists [9, 10]. The increase in female student enrollment in dentistry requires gender diversification of dental educators to provide mentorship, optimal learning environment, assorted perspective in career advice early in education, and guidance in choosing the specialties [11, 12]. Female educators can support young dental professionals’ growth and help them shape career choices, clinical attributes, and professional qualities through motivation, inspiration, and example [11, 13].

A substantial amount of research in the medical field has documented the difference in teaching styles based on gender. Studies done with medical students have reported that men perform better in terms of substantial knowledge and procedural skills while women have more robust communication and diagnostic skills [5, 14]. Other studies have found that women have a more professional attitude and provide better feedback while men are more knowledgeable [15, 16].

The learning environment in dental school includes teaching in the classroom, simulation clinic, and clinical setting. Clinical and simulation lab teaching is based on one-to-one interaction for extended hours where educators provide professional and personal guidance in the context of patient care [17]. Although differences in faculty interaction based on gender have been evaluated in medical education, such differences in dental education have not been examined. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate students’ perceptions of differences in learning from faculty of a different gender.

Method

Study setting and participation

Participants in this cross-sectional study were second, third, and final year pre-doctoral dental students at the University of New England College of Dental Medicine. All students were invited to participate. All participants received a cover letter and verbal briefing explaining the content of the study. For student privacy protection, no identifiable information was included in the survey. The entire class was presented with the survey and was informed not to fill it out if they did not wish to participate. All surveys were collected back regardless of the participation. No signed consent was obtained. Filling out the survey was used as implied informed consent. The Protocol was approved by the University of New England Institutional Review Board (Protocol No. 19.10.04–008).

Data collection

Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire adopted from the cognitive apprenticeship model in clinical practice [18]. Three faculty experts in public health, gender studies, and education evaluated the survey for content validity. After content validity, the survey was pre-tested with eight students of different age, gender, race and school year. A debriefing session was held following the pre-test completion to detect ambiguity of words, misinterpretation of answering scales, inability to answer sensitive questions, or any other problems with the questionnaire. The questions were adjusted based on participants’ comments. Students involved in the validation process were asked not to participate in the survey. The questionnaire (S1 File) consisted of three sections. The first section collected demographic information including age, gender, ethnicity, and current year of dental school. The second section consisted of twenty-two questions exploring gender-related perceptions. It included four questions about the difference in knowledge, six questions about communication and teaching skills, ten questions about grading and feedback, and two questions regarding cultural sensitivity. The third section inquired about student’s preferences for working with specific specialty based on the gender of the faculty. Students were asked to score faculty of different gender using a five point scale with five being the highest score. All questions included a not applicable (N/A) option.

Data analysis

Data were managed and analyzed using SPSS 21.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, N.Y., USA). Data were tested for normality using the Shapiro–Wilk test. As data were normally distributed, means and standard deviations were used for data description. Difference in perception scores according to student’s demographics were evaluated using an independent-sample t-test. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

Results

A total of 136 students completed the survey (75.4% response rate). Participants were 52.6% females, 62.2% self-identified as Caucasian/White and 54.5% were under the age of 26 years (Table 1). Most students have worked with both male and female faculty for at least one session per week in both the simulation clinic and during patient care (Table 2).

Table 1

Participants’ demographics.

Demographic Characteristics	N	%
Year
D2	54	39.7
D3	54	39.7
D4	28	20.6
Age
20–23	5	3.7
24–26	68	50.7
27–30	40	29.9
Greater than 30	21	15.7
Gender
Male	64	47.4
Female	71	52.6
Ethnicity
Caucasian/White	84	62.2
African American/Black	4	3.0
Hispanic/Latino	12	8.9
Asian	21	15.6
Mixed/multiple ethnic groups	7	5.2

Table 2

Student’s exposure to faculty of different genders.

Sessions per week	Female Faculty- Simulation Clinic		Female Faculty- Clinic		Male Faculty- Simulation Clinic		Male Faculty- Clinic
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Never	10	8.2	16	11.9	8	6.6	1	0.8
1–2	48	39.3	61	45.5	19	15.6	24	18.0
3 or more	64	52.5	57	42.5	95	77.9	108	81.2

Students reported that female faculty are more understanding (p = 0.001) and accepting of cultural differences compared to male faculty (p<0.001). Students also reported that they perceive female faculty more as being a role model than male faculty (p = 0.034) (Table 3). When comparing gender, male student’s perception of male faculty as a role model was significantly higher than female students (p<0.05) with no difference between male and female students in preserving female faculty as role models (p>0.05) (Table 4).

Table 3

Student’s mean (SD) perceptions scores for male and female faculty.

Items	Male Faculty	Female Faculty	P-value*
Provides constructive feedback	4.61 (.762)	4.69 (.667)	0.358
Approachable	4.58 (.725)	4.61 (.747)	0.737
Knowledgeable/skills	4.75 (.617)	4.81 (.554)	0.400
Encourages Critical thinking	4.64 (.690)	4.70 (.620)	0.451
Encourages discussions	4.60 (.752)	4.74 (.593)	0.089
Work effectively with others	4.580 (.755)	4.720 (.582)	0.134
Supportive	4.63 (.654)	4.72 (.658)	0.259
Motivational/Encouraging	4.53 (.842)	4.70 (.620)	0.096
Communicates well with patients	4.61 (.769)	4.71 (.606)	0.235
Communicates well with students	4.57 (.705)	4.71 (.583)	0.117
Communicates well with staff	4.67 (.680)	4.77 (.508)	0171
Works effectively with other faculty	4.54 (.751)	4.68 (.632)	0.097
Is a role model	4.48 (.995)	4.73 (.657)	0.034
More accepting to cultural differences	4.29 (.996)	4.74 (.591)	<0.001
Provides better understanding of cultures	4.30 (1.062)	4.73 (.651)	0.001
Trust your clinical judgment more	4.55 (.848)	4.46 (.834)	0.378
Gives more independence in performing procedures	4.60 (.859)	4.48 (.780)	0.297
Challenges your knowledge/credibility	4.53 (.814)	4.66 (.691)	0.157
More rigid/inflexible	4.12 (1.178)	4.26 (1.103)	0.313
Exerts superiority	3.96 (1.231)	4.10 (1.221)	0.347
Harder on grading	4.12 (1.332)	3.80 (1.375)	0.120

*Independent-sample t-test

Table 4

Student’s mean (SD) perception scores for male and female faculty according to student’s gender and ethnicity.

Items	Male Faculty		Female Faculty		Male Faculty		Female Faculty
	Male	Female	Male	Female	White	Others	White	Others
Provides constructive feedback	4.62 (.855)	4.59 (.682)	4.68 (.713)	4.69 (.635)	4.69 (.620)	4.49 (.920)	4.67 (.752)	4.71 (.549)
Approachable	4.66 (.717)	4.51 (.735)	4.74 (.664)	4.49 (.805)	4.62 (.637)	4.52 (.836)	4.70 (.558)	4.48 (.937)
Knowledgeable/skills	4.70 (.707)	4.80 (.528)	4.72 (.701)	4.89 (.369)	4.75 (.571)	4.75 (.686)	4.73 (.660)	4.91 (.358)
Encourages Critical thinking	4.72 (.607)	4.56 (.756)	4.64 (.663)	4.75 (.584)	4.71 (.584)	4.53 (.815)	4.77 (.560)	4.59 (.693)
Encourages discussions	4.63 (.727)	4.57 (.783)	4.78 (.587)	4.70 (.607)	4.66 (.680)	4.52 (.849)	4.85 (.444)*	4.57 (.737)
Work effectively with others	4.56 (.787)	4.58 (.738)	4.72 (.573)	4.72 (.601)	4.62 (.687)	4.50 (.849)	4.75 (.541)	4.67 (.644)
Supportive	4.63 (.668)	4.62 (.652)	4.65 (.805)	4.78 (.498)	4.68 (.566)	4.55 (.772)	4.77 (.560)	4.65 (.783)
Motivational/Encouraging	4.52 (.839)	4.53 (.858)	4.70 (.580)	4.71 (.658)	4.65 (.652)	4.33 (1.052)	4.79 (.517)	4.56 (.734)
Communicates well with patients	4.67 (.781)	4.55 (.765)	4.75 (.565)	4.67 (.648)	4.69 (.593)	4.48 (.969)	4.73 (.582)	4.68 (.650)
Communicates well with students	4.60 (.728)	4.54 (.693)	4.64 (.663)	4.77 (.504)	4.65 (.575)	4.45 (.861)	4.73 (.574)	4.67 (.606)
Communicates well with staff	4.67 (.694)	4.66 (.678)	4.71 (.582)	4.83 (.430)	4.73 (.582)	4.57 (.801)	4.76 (.536)	4.78 (.475)
Works effectively with other faculty	4.64 (.631)	4.44 (.850)	4.68 (.587)	4.67 (.683)	4.57 (.745)	4.50 (.773)	4.69 (.620)	4.65 (.662)
Is a role model	4.78 (.511)*	4.20 (1.172)	4.69 (.619)	4.76 (.699)	4.57 (.846)	4.33 (1.097)	4.77 (.563)	4.67 (.778)
More accepting to cultural differences	4.42 (.906)	4.15 (1.073)	4.72 (.573)	4.77 (.609)	4.37 (.863)	4.17 (1.167)	4.77 (.533)	4.70 (.674)
Provides better understanding of cultures	4.41 (1.024)	4.18 (1.101)	4.65 (.737)	4.80 (.566)	4.44 (.861)	4.10 (1.265)	4.80 (.595)	4.65 (.720)
Trust your clinical judgment more	4.65 (.663)	4.43 (1.000)	4.47 (.819)	4.44 (.861)	4.62 (.721)	4.43 (1.010)	4.47 (.842)	4.44 (.838)
Gives more independence in performing procedures	4.67 (.689)	4.52 (1.000)	4.47 (.793)	4.48 (.779)	4.63 (.828)	4.55 (.916)	4.43 (.840)	4.53 (.702)
Challenges your knowledge/credibility	4.58 (.821)	4.48 (.818)	4.69 (.624)	4.64 (.754)	4.56 (.772)	4.49 (.883)	4.71 (.671)	4.59 (.726)
More rigid/inflexible	4.13 (1.191)	4.10 (1.182)	4.16 (1.161)	4.35 (1.052)	4.20 (1.102)*	4.00 (1.285)	4.42 (.944)	4.02 (1.275)
Exerts superiority	4.07 (1.223)	3.83 (1.243)	4.14 (1.207)	4.04 (1.250)	4.21 (1.081)	3.58 (1.348)	4.21 (1.109)	3.92 (1.363)
Harder on grading	4.25 (1.214)	3.98 (1.438)	4.02 (1.334)	3.59 (1.408)	4.20 (1.354)	3.97 (1.320)	3.92 (1.368)	3.61 (1.386)

* p < 0.05 (Independent-sample t-test)

Students did not perceive a significant difference among women and men faculty in their knowledge, skills, compassion, critical thinking, providing feedback, communication skills, and grading (p>0.05) (Table 3). Caucasian/White students perceived women faculty as more encouraging for discussions and male faculty as more rigid/inflexible (p<0.05). There was no significant difference in students perception scores according to their age or year of study (p>0.05). Student’s perceptions of differences between male and female faculty according to student’s gender and ethnicity are shown in Table 4.

Students reported no preference in working with male or female faculty in both the simulation clinic and patient care (p>0.05). The gender or the ethnicity of the students did not impact their preference of working with a male or female faculty (p>0.05). Students also reported no preference in working with male or female faculty from different specialties except pediatric dentistry. Students preferred working with a female faculty while performing pediatric procedures (Table 5). When comparing student’s preferences based on student’s gender and ethnicity, Caucasian/White students have more preferences to work with male faculty for restorative and periodontal procedures compared to students from different ethnicities. There was no significant difference in students preferences scores according to their age or year of study (p>0.05). Student’s preferences of working with male or female faculty according to student’s gender and ethnicity are shown in Table 6.

Table 5

Student’s mean (SD) preference scores of working with male or female faculty in different specialty areas.

Items	Male Faculty	Female Faculty	P-Value*
Restorative procedures	4.510 (.899)	4.640 (.707)	0.342
Oral Surgery procedures	4.630 (.858)	4.380 (1.081)	0.219
Pediatric procedures	3.96 (1.149)	4.78 (.573)	<0.001
Orthodontic procedures	4.50 (.916)	4.67 (.736)	0.093
Endodontics procedures	4.48 (.892)	4.38 (1.173)	0.429
Periodontal procedures	4.47 (.905)	4.61 (.828)	0.184

*Independent-sample t-test

Table 6

Student’s mean (SD) preference scores of working with male or female faculty according to student’s gender and ethnicity.

Items	Male Faculty		Female Faculty		Male Faculty		Female Faculty
	Male	Female	Male	Female	White	Others	White	Others
Restorative procedures	4.52 (1.029)	4.50 (.804)	4.82 (.476)	4.51 (.810)	4.74 (.612)*	4.11 (1.155)	4.68 (.708)	4.56 (.712)
Oral Surgery procedures	4.81 (.557)	4.47 (1.042)	4.33 (1.188)	4.42 (1.018)	4.76 (.760)	4.40 (.995)	4.33 (1.209)	4.47 (.834)
Pediatric procedures	3.96 (1.301)	3.97 (1.045)	4.76 (.577)	4.79 (.577)	4.05 (1.177)	3.80 (1.105)	4.79 (.559)	4.75 (.608)
Orthodontic procedures	4.85 (.555)	4.26 (1.046)	4.92 (.277)	4.50 (.889)	4.67 (.840)	4.29 (.994)	4.72 (.669)	4.60 (.828)
Endodontics procedures	4.69 (.736)	4.32 (.976)	4.68 (.945)	4.09 (1.311)	4.59 (.865)	4.30 (.926)	4.63 (1.013)	4.10 (1.300)
Periodontal procedures	4.58 (.881)	4.35 (.935)	4.65 (.755)	4.58 (.902)	4.77 (.710)*	4.10 (.995)	4.74 (.677)	4.40 (1.000)

* p < 0.05 (Independent-sample t-test)

Discussion

Students perceived both male and female faculty similarly in their knowledge, skills, compassion, critical thinking, feedback, communication skills, and grading. Female faculty were more understanding and accepting of cultural differences. Students perceived female faculty as more understanding and culturally competent than male faculty. Both male and female students perceived female faculty as role models, while only male students perceived male faculty as role models.

Implicit gender bias has been reported in students’ medical and non-medical academic faculty evaluations [19-23]. One study reported that women are evaluated differently from men in two key areas [24]. First, women are evaluated on different criteria, including their personality, appearance, competency, and perception of intelligence, than men. Second, even when women are teaching identical courses and factors like personality and appearance are held constant, they are rated more poorly than men [24]. Previous reports from non-dental fields showed that students perceived male faculty as agentic, assertive, competent, and having higher leadership skills. In comparison, female faculty are perceived as communal types with better interpersonal and communication skills [21, 22, 24, 25]. Our study found no difference in student perception of clinical knowledge, critical thinking, and personality traits of communication, approachability, motivation, trust, and feedback based on the gender of the faculty. Additionally, such equal perception was seen regardless of the student’s gender and/or ethnicity. As dental students spend large amounts of one-to-one time with dental faculty, their responses are based on real experiences rather than pure perceptions, which may control some of their biases resulting in an equal evaluation of both genders. Even though the dental profession has a patriarchal past, students’ perceptions in the study show that dental education has a particularity that promotes gender equality.

A wealth of studies have reported systemic biases in faculty expectations for students’ education attainment [26-28]. Faculty expectation directly impacts their investment and engagement with students. Our study reported that Caucasian/White students compared to minority students perceived male faculty as more rigid in grading. These results align with earlier studies in non-medical fields where faculty showed lower expectations and potential for educational excellence from minority students than Caucasian/White students [26-28].

Cultural competence is integral to health literacy. The literature shows that both dentists and dental students lack the skills necessary to interact in cross-cultural environments and comprehensively treat patients from different cultures [29]. Faculty attitudes and behaviors regarding cultural awareness can help shape students’ cultural diversity. Previous studies have reported that clinical faculty are generally culturally diverse with no differences based on gender [30, 31]. In contrast, this study showed that students found female faculty more accepting and understanding of cultural differences than their male counterparts. This difference could also be due (sic) to sex stereotyping of women as nurturing, kind, sympathetic, and understanding. If put in the context of diversity, these traits enhance cultural competencies [32, 33]. Another potential explanation is that the majority of female faculty in the college are either from a minority background and/or have significant experience working with patients from different backgrounds, which makes them more culturally diverse.

Mentors and role models are essential for dental students’ success. They provide constructive feedback and help students adapt to the challenges and changes of a new profession to overcome ambiguity and self-doubt. Studies have shown that graduates with encouraging mentors were twice more engaged at work and had better job satisfaction and leadership qualities [34, 35]. In this study, students perceived both men and women as motivational, supportive, and encouraging for critical thinking—students from both genders perceived female faculty as role models. However, only male students saw a role model in the male faculty. Similar results were seen among undergraduate students [36]. The same gender preference can explain the results. Since academic dentistry is still a male-dominated field, male students can imagine themselves in these roles compared to female students [3]. We postulate that this difference highlights the importance of gender matching and having females in academic roles to inspire female students.

In addition, students’ decision to choose a postgraduate specialty can depend on encouraging mentors and exposure to gender-diverse faculty in different specialties [37]. In our study, male or female students showed no gender preference in working with any faculty from most specialties. Students perceived both men and women in different specialties as equally motivational, supportive, and encouraging of critical thinking and advanced training. However, this may not reflect their decision to pursue a specific dental specialty. Part-time faculty represented 50.3% of U.S dental school faculty in 2018–2019 [3]. These faculty engage in private practice and are more likely to endorse self-employment practices than postgraduate training [11]. It has been reported that females are underrepresented in specialties like oral surgery and endodontics, with more preferences toward pediatric dentistry, oral medicine, and general dentistry [11]. The lack of female role models and mentors has been reported as a factor in the internal segregation of dental specialties [38]. It will be interesting to investigate how exposure to different specialists from different genders influences students’ decision to pursue a particular specialty in future studies.

One of the limitations of this study is that it involved students from only one school. Different schools may have different student and faculty compositions, affecting overall student perceptions. Another limitation is that only differences based on gender were evaluated. Students’ perceptions can be influenced by the faculty’s ethnicity as well as their educational background. In this study, all non-White students were grouped into the “Others” category due to the small size of participants from each population. There are likely differences with members of this groups in their perceptions and experiences. Given these limitations, generalizability related to all non-White students is limited.

Conclusion

In conclusion, students’ perceptions can be colored by gender expectations, which influence their learning experiences. To attain gender diversification, dental schools should improve younger female faculty recruitment and support their advancement in academia and leadership roles. The importance of role models and mentors cannot be overemphasized. Female faculty in dental schools and private practices can be potential mentors for younger or less experienced female dentists. To increase dental faculty cultural diversity, schools need to provide faculty development seminars on gender and cultural awareness. Since this study was conducted only at one dental school, studies about student differences in perception based on gender in other dental schools would be valuable.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

6 Apr 2022

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,

Carlos Miguel Rios-González, Ph.D

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 change "female” or "male" to "woman” or "man" as appropriate, when used as a noun (see for instance https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender).

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. 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.

5. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) 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.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[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?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

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.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very interesting study. Please note this reviewer’s comments below.

Title:

Regarding the title of Dental Student’s Perception of Gender Differences among Dental Faculty: A Cross- sectional Study

It might be better stated as the following since it only relates to one dental school approach or as: A Cross-sectional Study of Dental Student Perception of Dental Faculty Gender Differences

Throughout the manuscript, please check for clarity and sentence structure.

Page 3 Lines 56-57 regarding

Mentors and role models’ effect on gender related specialty preference has been well-

documented in medicine. [8,9]

Please rephrase this statement for clarity.

Page 4 Lines 75-76 regarding

Survey was administered separately among all clinical years in class and collected from all students regardless of participation.

Can you please explain what is meant by regardless of participation?

Line 77 regarding

No signed consent forms were collected to protect student privacy. Filling the survey was used as implied informed consent.

Please rephrase these two sentences for clarity.

Page 6 Table 1, is this table necessary since the content has been documented within the manuscript.

Page 13 Line 173 regarding

This difference highlights the importance of gender matching and having females in academic roles to inspire female students.

Do you have a reference for this sentence?

Page 14 Line 192 regarding

To increase dental faculty cultural competency, schools need to provide faculty development seminars on gender and cultural awareness.

Did you mean cultural diversity vs. cultural competency? One can never be fully culturally competent since it is a journey. The word cultural competency shows up during the entire manuscript whereas a better fit can be cultural diversity and not competency.

Regarding Methodology

Can you please share the survey as a table so that others can duplicate this work?

Can you explain the high survey response rate if it was on a volunteer basis and confidential?

Did you have a chance to compare D2, to D3 and D4 years of training regarding for any statistical differences? In other words, are the reports more significant or less significant as the dental students advance to clinical confidence.

Reviewer #2: This study (survey) is well conducted and reported. Data in table 2 (Students' exposure to faculty of different genders) may be better presented as a figure (Histogram). Data in tables 3-6 should be defined e.g. Mean (SD)

Reviewer #3: 1. Discussion on the limitations of the manuscript should be expanded further. Comments regarding cultural/racial/ethnic differences are limited since the majority of the sample were Caucasian/White students. Lumping the non-White students together appeared to be for purely statistical analysis reasons, but can be misleading since there are likely differences in perception/experiences among African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, and Mixed/multiple ethnic groups.

2. Given the limitations of the data collected (e.g., sample in terms of race/ethnicity is rather homogeneous), the statistical analysis appears appropriate; however, the authors should determine whether much can really be concluded about the non-White students.

3. Authors noted the following: "Yes - all data are fully available without restriction." "The data underlying the results presented in the study is available on request from Shaista Rashid."

4. The manuscript needs to be edited throughout for grammar and clarity. For example, the use of apostrophes, especially accurately discerning between singular and plural, needs to be addressed. On p. 2, please explain "assorted prospective." On p. 7, please clarify ". . . no difference between male and female students in preserving female faculty as role models." On p. 12, need to edit: "This difference could also by (sic) sex stereotyping of women as being. . ."

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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: Mawlood Kowash

Reviewer #3: 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.

12 May 2022

Dear Carlos Miguel Rios-González,

Revision has been done according to suggestions

Submitted filename: Response to Reveiwers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Jun 2022

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,

Carlos Miguel Rios-González, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript has improved with your additional edits. This reviewer has additional comments:

On page 4 regarding: Data were collected using a self-administered questionnaire adopted from the cognitive apprenticeship model in clinical practice.[18] Formatting...

Please check Formatting... and clarify the word.

On page 5 regarding: All questions have a not applicable (N/A) option.

Should it be All questions included a not applicable (N/A) option.

On page 13 regarding: This difference highlights the importance of gender matching and having females in academic roles to inspire female students.

Please rephrase this sentence by adding that: It to it is our belief or our reflection or that we speculate that "this difference highlights the importance of gender matching and having females in academic roles to inspire female students or something like that to highlight your reflection vs. a quotation."

It would have been instrumental to read the specific survey questions; however, the questionnaire was not included. The origin of the survey should be documented as well as where the questions came from or how they were formatted.

Reviewer #2: Table 4. Student’s mean (SD) perception scores for male and female faculty according to student’s gender and ethnicity

First row includes

Same applied for Male Faculty and Female Faculty twice and NO students Male and Female data.

or Table 6.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (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.

**********

[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.

28 Jun 2022

Reviewers comments are greatly appreciated. The changes have been made based on reviews comments. Please refer to "Response to Reviewers" letter for more detailed description.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Jul 2022

A Cross-sectional Study of Dental Students Perception of Dental Faculty Gender Differences

PONE-D-21-33779R2

Dear Dr. Shaista Rashid,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

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,

Carlos Miguel Rios-González, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

11 Jul 2022

PONE-D-21-33779R2

A Cross-sectional Study of Dental Students Perception of Dental Faculty Gender Differences

Dear Dr. Rashid:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Carlos Miguel Rios-González

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE