Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the determinants of females' likelihood to work in a Muslim society, Azerbaijan.Design/methodology/approach - To obtain more precise results, the authors analyze the relationships of interest in three different contexts: single (unmarried) females (n = 407, M = 0.779, Std. = 0.416), married female (n = 398, M = 0.706, SD = 0.456) and married male (n = 381, M = 0.378, Std. = 0.485). Linear probabilistic models and logistic regression techniques are employed to estimate regression parameters.Findings - The results altogether display a strong positive impact of the educational attainment of both females and married males. Between the income of married males' and females' employment likelihood, nonlinear - inverse U-shaped association is found. The findings indicate that conservatism towards females' employment is not religiously opinionated, mostly due to insufficient educational attainment.Practical implications - Based on the research findings, inspiring individuals are recommended to attain degree level qualifications. Simultaneously, the government should engage in mass media to increase awareness of the public about the non-monetary benefits of female employment.Originality/value - The research results are highly useful for policy practices and fill the huge gap in the studies and research made on the Azerbaijan labor market.Peer review - The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-09-2019-0557.


Authors

Aliyev, Khatai;  Seyfullali, Javid;  Saidova, Narmin;  Musayev, Tural;  Nuhiyev, Farzali

Publons users who've claimed - I am an author

No Publons users have claimed this paper.

  • pre-publication peer review (FINAL ROUND)
    Decision Letter
    2020/06/02

    02-Jun-2020

    Dear Aliyev, Khatai; Seyfullali, Cavid; Saidova, Narmin; Musayev, Tural ; Nuhiyev, Ferzali

    It is a pleasure to accept your manuscript IJSE-09-2019-0557.R2, entitled "Factors affecting women’s employment likelihood in a Muslim society: The case of Azerbaijan" in its current form for publication in International Journal of Social Economics. Please note, no further changes can be made to your manuscript.

    Please go to your Author Centre at https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec (Manuscripts with Decisions for the submitting author or Manuscripts I have co-authored for all listed co-authors) to complete the Copyright Transfer Agreement form (CTA). We cannot publish your paper without this.

    All authors are requested to complete the form and to input their full contact details. If any of the contact information is incorrect you can update it by clicking on your name at the top right of the screen. Please note that this must be done prior to you submitting your CTA.

    If you have an ORCID please check your account details to ensure that your ORCID is validated.

    By publishing in this journal your work will benefit from Emerald EarlyCite. As soon as your CTA is completed your manuscript will pass to Emerald’s Content Management department and be processed for EarlyCite publication. EarlyCite is the author proofed, typeset version of record, fully citable by DOI. The EarlyCite article sits outside of a journal issue and is paginated in isolation. The EarlyCite article will be collated into a journal issue according to the journals’ publication schedule.

    FOR OPEN ACCESS AUTHORS: Please note if you have indicated that you would like to publish your article as Open Access via Emerald’s Gold Open Access route, you are required to complete a Creative Commons Attribution Licence - CCBY 4.0 (in place of the standard copyright assignment form referenced above). You will receive a follow up email within the next 30 days with a link to the CCBY licence and information regarding payment of the Article Processing Charge. If you have indicated that you might be eligible for a prepaid APC voucher, you will also be informed at this point if a voucher is available to you (for more information on APC vouchers please see http://www.emeraldpublishing.com/oapartnerships

    Thank you for your contribution. On behalf of the Editors of International Journal of Social Economics, we look forward to your continued contributions to the Journal.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Patrick O'Halloran
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    pohallor@monmouth.edu

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/05/26

    Although there a few minor grammatical issues, the article is good and ready for publication.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/05/19

    Thank you very much, you made a good job in addressing what has been suggested.
    Best regards

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/05/11

    Dear Editor and anonymous Reviewers,

    We are highly grateful for your valuable comments and suggestions. The manuscript has been developed accordingly and all changes are highlighted within the main text. Meanwhile, we have tried to address all comments and give further explanations after each comment, below:
    Comments by Reviewer 1
    Regarding grammatical errors in the manuscript, we have looked through the text again, and ask to a professional grammar check. Hopefully, all grammatical errors are removed from the text.
    Comments by Reviewer 2
    All comments are considered in the submitted version. Changes are done accordingly and highlighted in the text.
    Regarding the following comment:
    - P. 14 lines 32-39: Is there a strong correlation between the variables Religious and Believer?
    Both dummy variables - Religious and Believer represent the same categorical variable, religiosity. Mathematically, there is a strong negative correlation (-0.73) between these variables. Logically, this should happen as share of one category in total must decrease when share of another category increases in total. Please note that there is one more category – non-believers representing religiosity of individuals. That is why perfect correlation does not exist between Religious and Believer variables.

    Best regards,
    Khatai



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 2)
    Decision Letter
    2020/04/29

    29-Apr-2020

    Dear Dr. Aliyev:

    Manuscript ID IJSE-09-2019-0557.R1 entitled "Factors affecting women’s employment likelihood in a Muslim society: The case of Azerbaijan" which you submitted to the International Journal of Social Economics, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 30-May-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Social Economics and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Patrick O'Halloran
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    pohallor@monmouth.edu

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    The conceptual issues from the initial draft have been resolved. The expanded discussion of religion in various parts has strengthened the paper. However, there are still a significant number of grammatical issues throughout making still difficult to read. These need to be resolved before the paper can be published.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes, the paper explores employment in Azerbaijan, a topic that has been overlooked in scholarship. It considers various factors influencing the participation of females in the workforce.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: This section has been updated to include more current research as well as additional information on the impact of religion. This section has been strengthened.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: The methodology appears sound.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The conclusions are good and the additional material on religion was needed.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: This paper offers an important step in better understanding the participation (or lack thereof) of Muslim women in the work force.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: There are still numerous grammatical issues throughout the paper from missing words and incorrect terms to problematic phrasing. This reduces the clarity of the paper and needs to be addressed again.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Reviewer: 2

    Recommendation: Minor Revision

    Comments:
    Dear author(s),
    I read the paper carefully and I think this is a valuable piece of research. However, I have some minor comments that might help increasing the value added of the paper:
    - In my opinion, in the key-words it is better to use "income of married males" and not "non-wife income". Same everywhere in the paper.
    - P. 7 line 20 (abstract): married females and married males (plural).
    - P. 11 line 26: “females take family responsibilities” (plural)
    - P. 13 line 48: includes
    - P. 14: I suggest to call the variables “dummy variables” and not “dummies”.
    - P. 14 lines 32-39: Is there a strong correlation between the variables Religious and Believer?
    - P. 16 line 46: Leave some space after Table 2.
    - P. 20 line 3: “work increases 17.62% if the…” Maybe it is good to add “by” after “increases”
    - P. 23 line 41: “which is also very close to OLS result” make it bigger.
    Thank you.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: Yes, it does.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: Yes, the author(s) made a good job in improving the literature review.

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: Yes, the methodology and the empirical part are appropriate.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: Yes, results are presented clearly as well as the concluding remarks.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: Yes, it is.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: Yes, the language is very clear.

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes, the datasets are cited.

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no. All peer review content displayed here will be covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2020/04/10

    Dear author(s),
    I read the paper carefully and I think this is a valuable piece of research. However, I have some minor comments that might help increasing the value added of the paper:
    - In my opinion, in the key-words it is better to use "income of married males" and not "non-wife income". Same everywhere in the paper.
    - P. 7 line 20 (abstract): married females and married males (plural).
    - P. 11 line 26: “females take family responsibilities” (plural)
    - P. 13 line 48: includes
    - P. 14: I suggest to call the variables “dummy variables” and not “dummies”.
    - P. 14 lines 32-39: Is there a strong correlation between the variables Religious and Believer?
    - P. 16 line 46: Leave some space after Table 2.
    - P. 20 line 3: “work increases 17.62% if the…” Maybe it is good to add “by” after “increases”
    - P. 23 line 41: “which is also very close to OLS result” make it bigger.
    Thank you.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Reviewer report
    2020/04/06

    The conceptual issues from the initial draft have been resolved. The expanded discussion of religion in various parts has strengthened the paper. However, there are still a significant number of grammatical issues throughout making still difficult to read. These need to be resolved before the paper can be published.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
    Author Response
    2020/03/28

    Dear Reviewer,

    We are grateful for your comments and suggestions. The manuscript has been developed accordingly and all changes are highlighted within the main text. Meanwhile, we have tried to address all comments and give further explanations after each comment. The detailed response is attached.

    Thanks in advance,
    Khatai



    Cite this author response
  • pre-publication peer review (ROUND 1)
    Decision Letter
    2020/02/13

    13-Feb-2020

    Dear Dr. Aliyev:

    Manuscript ID IJSE-09-2019-0557 entitled "Factors affecting women’s employment likelihood in a Muslim society: The case of Azerbaijan" which you submitted to the International Journal of Social Economics, has been reviewed. The comments of the reviewer(s) are included at the bottom of this letter.

    The reviewer(s) have recommended major revisions to the submitted manuscript, before it can be considered for publication. Therefore, I invite you to respond to the reviewer(s)' comments and revise your manuscript.

    To revise your manuscript, log into https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ijsec and enter your Author Centre, where you will find your manuscript title listed under "Manuscripts with Decisions." Under "Actions," click on "Create a Revision." Your manuscript number has been appended to denote a revision.

    You will be unable to make your revisions on the originally submitted version of the manuscript. Instead, revise your manuscript using a word processing program and save it on your computer. Please also highlight the changes to your manuscript within the document by using the track changes mode in MS Word or by using bold or coloured text.

    Once the revised manuscript is prepared, you can upload it and submit it through your Author Centre. The deadline for uploading a revised manuscript is 14-Apr-2020 from receiving this email. If it is not possible for you to resubmit your revision within this timeframe, we may have to consider your paper as a new submission.

    When submitting your revised manuscript, you will be able to respond to the comments made by the reviewer(s) in the space provided. You can use this space to document any changes you make to the original manuscript. In order to expedite the processing of the revised manuscript, please be as specific as possible in your response to the reviewer(s).

    IMPORTANT: Your original files are available to you when you upload your revised manuscript. Please delete any redundant files before completing the submission.

    Please note that Emerald requires you to clear permission to re-use any material not created by you. If there are permissions outstanding, please send these to Emerald as soon as possible. Emerald is unable to publish your paper with permissions outstanding.

    Once again, thank you for submitting your manuscript to the International Journal of Social Economics and I look forward to receiving your revision.

    Sincerely,
    Dr. Patrick O'Halloran
    Editor, International Journal of Social Economics
    pohallor@monmouth.edu

    Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author:
    Reviewer: 1

    Recommendation: Major Revision

    Comments:
    This paper has a lot of potential to examine the various factors that influence female participation in the workplace. A greater focus on religion is required. The finding that religion was "statistically insignificant" is almost hidden in the conclusion. Moreover, religion is not addressed in the literature review. As a result, the title does not reflect the content of the paper as it is barely addressed. Conversely, the removal of "Muslim society" in the title would also address this issue. Additionally, greater attention needs to be paid to the various subcategories of women. For instance, "single females" includes both women who are never married and widows. Do they have similar experiences? Do widows with children have different priorities than never married women with children or never married women without children? A focus on these details would help to elevate the quality of the paper. Finally, there are many grammatical issues throughout the paper that made it difficult to read and detracted from the overall strength of the arguments. This needs to be addressed to improve the accessibility of the paper.

    Additional Questions:
    Originality: Does the paper contain new and significant information adequate to justify publication?: I agree that this subject "should be studied by applying empirical techniques" but this claim would be much stronger if other studies on the subject (utilizing different approaches) were listed. This is a way to argue for a more comprehensive examination while acknowledging any research that has come before. The author needs to present a more compelling case for publication.

    Relationship to Literature: Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?: According to the title, the paper should be focusing on female labor participation in a Muslim society. Yet, in the literature review, there is no mention of the impact of religion on the decision of women to work. Does more religious fundamentalism and geographical area (urban, suburban, rural) influence access to education and job opportunities? Is a Muslim society structured around different gender ideologies/norms than predominantly Christian ones?

    The author references studies in the introduction that are significantly old. The first was published in 1960 and the most recent listed was 1991. A lot has changed in society and culture over the past 30 years. Moreover, not all countries have the same level of development and a 1:1 comparison cannot be made. So the author needs to take all this into consideration when referencing this material. (This point is addressed later in the paper but needs to be adjusted when referenced in the introduction)

    What other "uncontrolled" factors might contribute to wage discrimination? Include them in a bracket.

    Replace "since old decades" with "for many decades"

    Methodology: Is the paper's argument built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts, or other ideas? Has the research or equivalent intellectual work on which the paper is based been well designed? Are the methods employed appropriate?: The methodology appears sound although the lack of focus on religion in the analysis is an issue that needs to be addressed. See below.

    Results: Are results presented clearly and analysed appropriately? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper?: The paper is supposed to focus on Muslim society but the findings focus on education level rather than level of religious commitment. If the goal is to focus on females with only a slight nod to religion, then remove "Muslim society" from the title.

    There is a lack of clarity in the writing. This has been addressed below. Improvement in this area will strengthen the results.

    There is an inconsistency in terminology. The author uses females throughout while husbands and married men are used interchangeably. This is problematic. Since "married males" is used in the actual study, it should be the term consistently used throughout the paper as well. Assigned sex and gender speak to different social aspects so stick to one or the other.

    The results are not surprising and the author seems to be running different models to come to same conclusion. While education level impacts the female participation in the workforce, can this be further analyzed using the other factors like (i) being widowed, (ii) the age of the woman, (iii) her level of religious commitment, (iv) his level of religious commitment, etc. I feel that more could be said here.

    Implications for research, practice and/or society: Does the paper identify clearly any implications for research, practice and/or society? Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? How can the research be used in practice (economic and commercial impact), in teaching, to influence public policy, in research (contributing to the body of knowledge)? What is the impact upon society (influencing public attitudes, affecting quality of life)? Are these implications consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper?: The implication of the study is that the level of female education directly corresponds to workplace participation. This is a finding that is common in other studies. The question is, what makes this paper worthy of publication since it simply confirms what we already know. A consideration of the other factors listed above would offer some original thought.

    Quality of Communication: Does the paper clearly express its case, measured against the technical language of the field and the expected knowledge of the journal's readership? Has attention been paid to the clarity of expression and readability, such as sentence structure, jargon use, acronyms, etc.: In the abstract, the connection of "females and husbands" should be modified. One is based on assigned sex and the other on a gendered social status. Use the terms from the model: "females and married males" The use of husband requires the use of the term wife which is not employed in this study (for consistency).

    There are many minor grammatical issues throughout. Most of them have to do with missing words such as "the" or improper use of single/plural forms. For instance, the last paragraph on page 3 is very unclear as well as the last paragraph on page 4 ("spend their time mostly in outside" - what does that mean?) Also, what does "higher quality children" mean? Having a paper proofread for spelling and grammar prior to submission will ensure greater clarity.

    What does "in both female and husband perspective" mean? Do you mean the information being relayed by single and married females as well as married males about their wives? In fact, consider employing "married males about their wives" for clarity.

    What is non-wife income? The income of married males? Or the income of non-married females?

    Reproducible Research: If appropriate, is sufficient information, potentially including data and software, provided to reproduce the results and are the corresponding datasets formally cited?: Yes

    This journal is participating in Publons Transparent Peer Review. By reviewing for this journal, you agree that your finished report, along with the author’s responses and the Editor’s decision letter, will be linked to from the published article to where they appear on Publons, if the paper is accepted. If you have any concerns about participating in the Transparent Peer Review pilot, please reach out to the journal’s Editorial office. Please indicate below, whether you would like your name to appear with your report on Publons by indicating yes or no.: No, I would not like my name to appear with my report on Publons

    Decision letter by
    Cite this decision letter
    Reviewer report
    2019/12/07

    This paper has a lot of potential to examine the various factors that influence female participation in the workplace. A greater focus on religion is required. The finding that religion was "statistically insignificant" is almost hidden in the conclusion. Moreover, religion is not addressed in the literature review. As a result, the title does not reflect the content of the paper as it is barely addressed. Conversely, the removal of "Muslim society" in the title would also address this issue. Additionally, greater attention needs to be paid to the various subcategories of women. For instance, "single females" includes both women who are never married and widows. Do they have similar experiences? Do widows with children have different priorities than never married women with children or never married women without children? A focus on these details would help to elevate the quality of the paper. Finally, there are many grammatical issues throughout the paper that made it difficult to read and detracted from the overall strength of the arguments. This needs to be addressed to improve the accessibility of the paper.

    Reviewed by
    Cite this review
All peer review content displayed here is covered by a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.