Reviewer response for version 1
This is an excellent, well-written and well-researched opinion paper about barriers to female progression on the academic career ladder. 
Though Kamerlin carefully positions herself in the context of the Swedish research system and in the natural sciences, her observations (unfortunately) apply to many more contexts and fields.
I would like to pick up on one point that Kamerlin discusses at quite some length: the issue of implicit bias. 
This is an issue facing many women from very early on in their academic career, as a result of deeply entrenched stereotypes about what constitutes a proper scientist, what a scientist looks like and what a scientist does. 
Kamerlin rightly points out how these implicit biases affect women's own career choices, in addition to the hiring and promotion procedures they are subjected to, and even the peer review of their grant proposals and papers.
There is one point about implicit bias that the author leaves untouched though in an otherwise broad-ranging and very comprehensive article. 
And this is the point about how academic merit itself is not objective and a-political, but heavily masculinised . 
I recommend reading the excellent article by Margaret Thornton on the contemporary re-masculinisation of the academy (Thornton, 2013), in which she shows how academic capitalism also exercises incidental gender effects. 
In today's highly competitive and precarious climate, Thornton argues, researchers of any gender are incentivised to focus mainly on masculinised performance measures that promote productivity and accumulation of capital. 
In the process, other - feminised - activities are seen as unproductive. 
This includes pastoral care for students, thinking, reading, anonymous reviewing, and mentoring of junior researchers. 
What counts is that which can be counted. 
Anything else is rendered as 'waste'.
I hope that discussions about barriers to female career progression will also spearhead into an open debate about the kind of science we currently hold in highest regard in the first place . 
Does 'the gendered sub-text of technopreneurialism' (Thornton, 2013: 134) override more complex notions of quality and academic virtues? 
Does 'benchmark masculinity' (ibid: 136) affect the kinds of knowledge we produce under such conditions?
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with Kamerlin that we need more mentors, and more role models. 
And she is definitely one of them. 
Many researchers should find inspiration in how Kamerlin uses the networks and platforms at her disposal to further the discussion about the gender gap in the academy, and how she is putting into practice a different set of leadership skills, in order to make a difference.
Structure
Strength
Weakness
Recap
Other
Strength
Weakness
Other
Todo
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Todo
Todo
Strength
Other
Strength