Bibliometric Review of Design for Digital Inclusion
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
SEARCH WORDS encompass a very broad area of topics that make in-depth analysis impossible: “inclusive design” or “universal design” AND “digital” or “online” or “app” 85 or “interface” or “phone” or “web” or “tablet” or “system” or “HCI” OR “digital inclusion” 86 or “digital inclusivity” and design in the TOPIC field. You identify your topic as “design for digital inclusion” (p. 2), but your search words indicate a technical viewpoint that emphasizes certain types of solutions (phone and tablet) and general technical terms (universal design, system) that open the field to practically all digital applications.
METHODOLOGY: The definition you selected for inclusive design is the broadest of available definitions and does not facilitate a focused study: “Inclusive design refers to developing services and products that can be used by populations with diverse backgrounds and capabilities” (p. 2).
RESULTS: the four areas you identify as research foci are too general to discuss in connection with inclusive design: (1) information technology, (2) 16 digital education, (3) assistive technology and (4) digital Health. They are complex research and development areas that are necessarily connected with the development of applications supporting digital inclusivity. Therefore, your research does not provide new insights. It identifies research themes and gaps that do not narrow the field of digital applications connected to inclusivity and therefore, potential future research directions identified are not new.
Publication trends identified (Fig. 1, p. 9) are well-known: the number of papers increases as digital technology evolves, and the COVID pandemic inspired a large number of studies about digital inclusion as education and communication turned overwhelmingly digital. (A study focusing on the types of inclusive research and thematic foci during the pandemic would have been more interesting than the historical analysis.) It is no surprise that most publications concerning digital inclusion appear in the journal dedicated to this topic, Universal Access in the Information Society (Fig. 2, p. 4).
Citations are related to authors and their institutions (why? if there is affiliation important, not huge universities but departments/research groups should be indicated) and not themes – a decision that leaves us with a list of papers with very short indications of their topics (Table 2, p. 6)
The overview of the four thematic clusters identified (Table 3, p. 9) is incomprehensible to this reviewer. If these clusters are the dominant ones, why indicate only a few publications connected to them? How were those included in this table selected?
Fig. 1 and after this, Fig. 4 (numbering error? p. 10.) showing the o-occurrence of the keyword network and the same with period change may be interesting, but reading the figures would have required an introduction to the visualization method and a more detailed explanation of results.
DISCUSSION is only one page long and reveals results that are obvious even without bibliometric research. A more detailed explanation of new results with reference to data (preferably those represented in the tables and figures in the paper) would have been necessary.
LIMITATIONS: the Author remarks that bibliometric studies produce results with short validity period. Instead of a bibliometric analysis, a systematic literature review would have been a better method to identify key themes and messages of papers (cf. this study on the use and limitations of bibliometric analysis: Naveen Donthu, Satish Kumar, Debmalya Mukherjee, Nitesh Pandey, Weng Marc Lim (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is interesting and shows how to investigate a bibliometric analysis to reflect on current status of design for digital inclusion research, uncovered the publication trend, the most cited journals, the most cited articles and the top authors with institutions, as well as the bibliographic coupling and co-occurrence keywords for identifing research themes and future research directions. Finally, four main investigated topics in the field were identified.
My detailed comments and recommendations related to the paper are presented below.
1. The materials and methods part of the study is not clearly explained, and the specific analysis software used is not described in detail.
2. Bibliometric analysis is a research method that has been applied too often,usually as a comprehensive research progress analysis and review
part, there is no new theoretical model or integrated innovation in research methods in this paper, but only one bibliometric analysis method is directly adopted, which leads to a lack of theoretical innovation.
3. In the Top Authors with Institutions analysis section, it should be clarified that corresponding and first authors contribution to studies, and also whether there is a high probability that authors from the same institutions appear in the same paper sources.
4. There is a figure number labeling error, Figure 1 appears twice, the second appearance of Figure 1 should be Figure 3.
5.Whether the literature search accurately included as much literature as possible, the search strategy ins this paper included the use of the keywords “inclusive design” or “universal design” ,but other words with similar meanings, such as accessible design and barrier-free design are not used.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript essentially meets the requirements of a scientific paper. In terms of research objectives, the manuscript provides a thorough review and critique of the literature.
Chapter 4 discusses the impact of COVID-19, which indeed exists. However, with the slowing down of the pandemic, it may be necessary to reevaluate the relevance of the research findings.
Further enhancement is needed in the discussion and analysis of the literature review in Chapter 4, particularly in clearly presenting the viewpoints of the authors of this paper.
The limitations of the study and why they were not addressed at the beginning of the research need to be reasonably explained.
It is advised that the authors of this paper exercise caution in using overly definitive terms to describe the research methods and tools employed. Furthermore, it is important to further examine whether this paper genuinely fills the gaps in the related field.
Minor issue: On line 314, there is an error in the numbering of the title.
Careful proofreading of manuscripts is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a very timely and important body of work presenting a bibliometric analysis to reflect on the state-of-the-art development of design for digital inclusion, uncover research themes, and suggest future directions in the field. In general, the research is original and it is very well carried out.
Some points to be considered during the revision:
The major themes such as information technology, online education, assistive technology, and digital health are well carried out. Based on Figures 3 and 4 there are some dominant interrelations between the clusters. From the reviewer’s view, a discussion regarding the interrelations between the clusters will prepare the ground later on in the discussion (research gaps and future research directions).
A diagram illustrating the future directions in relation to Figure 3 would bring a more solid vision.
Typo errors:
1. Line 19, page 1: Keyword Inclusive, the first letter is bold
2. Page 7, Figure 3 is missing, refers to Figure 1 in the text
Grammar errors:
The authors might consider using another linking word in line 49, page 2.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I gave a detailed assessment in the first review round and the Authors have addressed my concerns. I understand that the Authors use method that i do not find optimal for the research questions concerned. Academic freedom, however, allows the Authors to adhere zo the methodology selected. I
