Emerging Themes for Digital Accessibility in Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The method needs to explain a little about how to collect and process data to describe it. 

Every picture or chart presented should have its meaning explained. 

The conclusion should only present the conclusions of the research or the final statement globally and the novelty found. There is no need to present citations and repeat descriptions of research results.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The method needs to explain a little about how to collect and process data to describe it.  We explain now that were used the files found on databases and added: “The steps were: i. search for articles on the database by keywords, ii. insert the files from the search on VOSviewer and analyze the maps results, iii. narrow the articles by reading titles, abstracts and keywords, iv. develop a classification system, v. define the inclusion and exclusion criterias, vi. identify the gaps in literature using Sassaki [1] dimensions. “

 

Every picture or chart presented should have its meaning explained.  Figure 4 was explained on page 8, before the figure

 

The conclusion should only present the conclusions of the research or the final statement globally and the novelty found. There is no need to present citations and repeat descriptions of research results. Removed

Reviewer 2 Report

This article should have been dedicated to new topics that arise in connection with digital accessibility in education. This issue is stated in the title, but it is problematic and presented in the content of the article.

The Methodology section begins "The research method was a systematic literature review that was based on the methodologies of [9], [10], [11], [12] and [7]". This is not an answer to the question of what methods the authors use. It needs to be finalized by describing the methodology rather than taking the reader on a journey of research that may reflect multiple methods. There is no clarity.

The results section begins with a listing of the works. However, it is not clear by what criterion these works were selected.

The article reflects the analysis of some articles, but which ones are not listed.

In the introduction, the authors made a reference to the important work of Sassaki, R. K. (2009). But it is unclear how the themes raised in this study are transformed.

The introduction does not give an idea of the problem stated in the title or the intent of the work itself.

  This study lacks a systematic review linking the terms "digital accessibility", "education", "educational" and "learning". As a result, the authors had to show that the architectonics and settings of Sassaki [1] were not taken into account in the result of the selected study. Why? In conclusion, there is nothing about these parameters and how they are not taken into account. However, this is one of the important results.

The description of the organization of the study does not bring any clarity. For each section, information should be provided in a brief form that is significant in a particular section.

The substantiation seems very inexpressive (and it is unclear why this remark is presented in the Conclusion, and not in the study's methodology) that the congress data were not taken. Some researchers share their texts. Therefore, this explanation is invalid.

Authors need to redesign the way they present research.

Author Response

This article should have been dedicated to new topics that arise in connection with digital accessibility in education. This issue is stated in the title, but it is problematic and presented in the content of the article. Added on introduction: “identify the emerging themes in this area,” and the themes are presented on context/themes section

 

The Methodology section begins "The research method was a systematic literature review that was based on the methodologies of [9], [10], [11], [12] and [7]". This is not an answer to the question of what methods the authors use. It needs to be finalized by describing the methodology rather than taking the reader on a journey of research that may reflect multiple methods. There is no clarity. Added: “The steps were: i. search for articles on the database by keywords, ii. insert the files from the search on VOSviewer and analyze the maps results, iii. narrow the articles by reading titles, abstracts and keywords, iv. develop a classification system, v. define the inclusion and exclusion criterias, vi. identify the gaps in literature using Sassaki [1] dimensions. “

 

The results section begins with a listing of the works. However, it is not clear by what criterion these works were selected. The works were selected from the systematic review presented on Methodology Section.

 

The article reflects the analysis of some articles, but which ones are not listed. Sorry, I don’t understand what do you mean with “listed”?

 

In the introduction, the authors made a reference to the important work of Sassaki, R. K. (2009). But it is unclear how the themes raised in this study are transformed. They were not transformed. We use the dimensions to classified the articles found on systematic review. Explained on page 16: “The association between the keywords that resulted from the VOSviewer analysis and Sassaki's dimensions [1] showed that the most frequent gaps of studies are in the architectural dimension area, that is, comparing the architectural accessibility part with the digital one, followed by the attitudinal dimension issue which is linked to prejudice and discrimination in relation to people with disabilities. Some keywords are not directly related to the programmatic dimension due to the fact there is no legislation on the matter, as well as instrumental due to the lack of an instrument or tool to assess it.”

 

The introduction does not give an idea of the problem stated in the title or the intent of the work itself. Added on introduction: “identify the emerging themes in this area,” and the themes are presented on context/themes section

This study lacks a systematic review linking the terms "digital accessibility", "education", "educational" and "learning". As a result, the authors had to show that the architectonics and settings of Sassaki [1] were not taken into account in the result of the selected study. Why? In conclusion, there is nothing about these parameters and how they are not taken into account. However, this is one of the important results. The purpose of the article is to link the terms and the dimension’s Sassaki and identify gaps in the area of digital accessibility linked to education.

 

The description of the organization of the study does not bring any clarity. For each section, information should be provided in a brief form that is significant in a particular section. I think is more clear with the addition of: ““The steps were: i. search for articles on the database by keywords, ii. insert the files from the search on VOSviewer and analyze the maps results, iii. narrow the articles by reading titles, abstracts and keywords, iv. develop a classification system, v. define the inclusion and exclusion criterias, vi. identify the gaps in literature using Sassaki [1] dimensions. 

 

The substantiation seems very inexpressive (and it is unclear why this remark is presented in the Conclusion, and not in the study's methodology) that the congress data were not taken. Some researchers share their texts. Therefore, this explanation is invalid. I don’t understand what do you mean with “substantiation”. About the congress if was the exclusion criteria adopted on systematic review for the articles, it’s justified because this type of articles doesn’t have the peer review

Authors need to redesign the way they present research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Review

“Emerging themes for digital accessibility in education”

 General assessment: 

·  The paper addresses research gaps in the domain of digital accessibility in education. The authors review the recent scientific literature up to February 2023 as found in Web of Science and Scopus and the presence / treatment of topics concerning digital / information accessibility in these sources. They tentatively (in my view, however, this is not made sufficiently explicit in the paper) that some themes are more recurringly treated in the literature than others The authors also make a point that some gaps should be filled in the existing literature, e.g., research on indexes, indicators, or the attitudinal dimension.

 

·   In general, the topic of this study is relevant (especially to the special issue in which it should be published) and could be developed in a very interesting way, but the paper has a number of issues that imperatively need to be considered before the author re-submits it. In particular (but see below [“Content” and “Formal aspects”] for details):

 

-      Unfortunately, the English used in this paper is terrible. Many expressions are not idiomatic (in some cases I did not even understand what the authors mean). Only because of this, I would suggest re-submission: the article cannot be published in this form, since no one could possibly read it. I suggest the authors should have it read by a native speaker and re-submit it only after comprehensive revision.

 

-      Many points made in the paper are unclear or extremely superficial. Maybe this is due to the language. Below, you find some suggestions to improve the informativity of the text. In some cases, I did not understand what was meant by given terms or expressions.

 

-      The conclusions are not stated clearly enough.

 

For this reason, I tend to believe that the paper cannot be published in the present form. Instead of proposing rejection, however, I would rather like to give the authors a chance to improve/fix/delete the issues pointed out in this report and re-submit a significantly revised version of the article. The revised version must not only consider the points made here, but also provide a much more in-depth analysis of the data collected in the empirical study and contain a contextualization of the results of the study.

 

Therefore, my overall recommendation is:

RECONSIDER AFTER MAJOR REVISION

 

Content:

- p. 1: “Thus, the characteristics of digital accessibility and research on it are important to promote positive experiences and opportunities for citizens to access technologies and utility public services, considering that since the mid-1990s the world has become heavily digitized” > This is a repetition of what has already been made clear above. Please delete this sentence or reformulate it in order to add new information.

- p. 2: The first paragraph of section 2 – in particular its central part – does not seem to be part of a coherent text. Please make the connections between the single elements you list more clearer.

- p. 2: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 2: What is the difference between the concepts “information accessibility” and “digital accessibility” assumed here? Is there a difference? This is not made clear in this chapter, and the third paragraph abruptly introduces digital accessibility after defining information accessibility in the previous paragraph. Please add the missing information linking the two concepts. This is crucial in a paper like this.

- p. 3: The authors describe the methods by mentioning a search in two platforms using some strings that are made explicit in the text. However, they do not go into the type of papers considered at this point. Please also make this information explicit here.

- p. 4: “Older concepts from 2019 and 2018 are "special education…” > How were you able to determine that? Please say something more specific about the way you analyzed the data to come to this conclusion.

- p. 8: “g were from the following authors: [8]; [7]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [3]; [19]; [20]; [21]; [5]; [22]; [23]” > Why are the authors listed in this counterintuitive order? If this needs to be done like this, please explain.

- The points made in the introduction and in the two final sections of the paper are quite vague. Please be more explicit in spelling out your considerations.

- p. 18: “Another issue observed in the search is the question of the language in which the article was written, for it to have an international reach, it would be interesting if they were written in English, and several were found in Spanish or Portuguese” > But were the strings used not in English?

 

 

Formal aspects:

 

- Why are the numbers referring to each of the references repeated twice? Please correct this.

- p. 1: Where the affiliation of the second author is indicated, please delete the blank space between “- e-mail: [email protected]” and the semicolon.

- General remark: As far as the English of this paper is concerned, I will just exemplarily make reference to some issues present in the first part of the article. Listing every single mistake and proposing a valid alternative would imply re-writing it, since virtually every sentence contains multiple mistakes or unidiomatic expressions. In general, my advice is to have the paper read by a native speaker before re-submitting:

- p. 1: “The aim of this research was to verify the gaps of search and future research about digital accessibility in education.” > Two comments: (i) the expression “gaps of search” is understandable, but not common in my English and arguably not really established in the academic prose (maybe) outside of some specialist terminologies: I would use “research gaps” or “gaps in research” or something like that; (ii) about the second part of the utterance: the only way I can interpret this sentence is in the sense that the authors would like to verify, besides the research gaps in this domain, also the GAPS IN FUTURE RESEARCH on this topic. What is that supposed to mean exactly? How do you investigate gaps in research that still do not exist? Please reformulate (e.g., by adding a verb in the second conjunct of this coordination).

- p. 1: “. This research carries out a systematic review linking terms of “digital accessibility”, “education”, “educational” and “teaching”” > linking this terms to what? Or what do the authors mean here? I do not understand this sentence. Do the authors mean that they will carry out a systematic review of the concepts listed below? If this is the case, please keep it simple and formulate this as it is.

- p. 1: “As a result, was found that…” > IT was found that

. p. 1: “was not attend on result of the selected research of systematic review” > I do not understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. Is that some kind of Lusitanism in English?

- p. 1: “It was too observed the necessity to searches …” > The necessity to search … was also observed

- p. 1: “to evaluate on digital education” > evaluate digital education

- p. 1: “it refers to a stigmas and discriminations with people with disabilities” > without “a”, since the following nouns are plural.

- p. 1: “although they are not specific on education area, but that can be adopted for it.” > This is not a good academic formulation. Also, what is the referent of the “that” used as a subject of the second sentence? The subject of the previous one is a sungular…

- p. 1: “The broadband connection nowadays is SO ESSENTIAL LIKE the access of electric energy and drinking water > as essential as

- p. 1: “to guaranty equality in the areas…” > guarantee

- p. 1: “Furthermore, the digital technology” > no definite article

- p. 1: “…digital technology is already a characteristic ubiquitous in modern life, like computer, internet, smartphones, digital television, smart technology …” > This is not a good formulation. The second part of the sentence can only be interpreted as an exemplification of OTHER characteristics. The numeration should therefore be positioned after “digital technology”, not at the end of the utterance.

- p. 1: “has become a right of access to the city” > I do not understand what this means

- p. 1: “access to connect and computerize public institutions” > Do the authors mean “to connecting and computerizing…” or “to connected and computerized…”?

- p. 1. “; digital public services (websites, applications, digital services) that are not sufficiently adapted for all population groups and therefore may require the development and implementation of appropriate standards” > Where is the main verb in this sentence?

- p. 1: “there is a significant increase” > there has been

- p. 1, penultimate line: This is already the third “thus” on this page: please use another connective. Moreover, the adverb “thus” has a consecutive meaning, which is absent here (the authors say that “thus, the paper will be focused on XYZ”, but this is not a consequence of what has been said above). The sentence can more naturally start in the following way: “This study seeks to identify…”.

- p. 2: Please delete the space to the left of “If so, …”.

- p. 2: “what has it been validated (applied) on which audience?” > without “it”

- p. 2: “in other publics” > This is not English, where “public” is originally only an adjective. I think the authors mean “audiences here”.

- p. 2: “on Digital Accessibility and Digital Accessibility in teaching” > I would disambiguate this by adding “in general” (or something similar) after the first “Digital Accessibility”.

- p. 2: “Making an allusion” > I don’t think this is what the authors mean here. An allusion in English is something else.

- p. 3: “The number of articles…” > Do the authors mean “the amount”/“the scope” here?

- p. 4: “In viewing by color, it was identified that the topic of digital accessibility appears more between the years 2019 and 2020” > What does “in viewing by color” mean? Moreover “appears more” is not an expression that is idiomatic in English. Maybe “occurs more frequently” (or something similar including an adverb)?

- p. 4, second paragraph below the figure: all expressions/terms in quotation marks contain a (low) comma that should appear outside of the inverted commas.

- p. 4: “makes clearer the intensity” > makes … clearer

- p. 6: “As for the authors, Table 3, and Figure 3 show Fioretti, Rovira, Turro and Martinez, in this order of year of publication, but with greater strength of Turro > Martinez > Busqueta > Fioretti > Rovira.” > I do not understand this sentence. What is this “greater strength” that the authors are making reference to here with respect to the second group of authors?

- p. 7: “It was verified which articles were related” > This kind of impersonal structure does not exist in English. Please replace this with something like “We verified which articles…” or “The type of articles … was verified” (this is just an example: it means that what is veriefied should become the subject of the sentence).

- p. 8, Table 4: “Total articles read complete” > This cannot be expressed like this in English. Maybe “read completely”?

- p. 8: “most of the articles read, 38.46%” >A comma is missing after the percentage value (which is supposed to be interpreted as an apposition here).

- p. 10: “although the year 2023 is in February at the time of writing this study, the number of citations of the selected article in this year is quite representative.” > What is this supposed to mean?

- p. 10, caption of Table 6: The first word should probably be capitalized like in the other captions.

- p. 12: “The levels of education presented in the selected articles were predominantly higher education, 61.54%, in 15.38% it did not specify the level of education and the rest, in 7.69% was in the U.S…” > I do not understand this sentence. Please reformulate.

- p. 12: “it was verified the occurrence of the terms” > the occurrence … was verified

- p. 12: “It is interesting how much the terms accessibility” > It is interesting to notice how much … (this kind of impersonal construction does not exist in English).

- p. 14: “Here are presented the possible gaps…” > Here, the possible gaps … are presented

- p. 16: The title of section 5 should probably be “Discussion”, not “Discussions”.

- p. 16: “Within the studies read” > “In the studies considered here/in the present paper, …”

- Between pp. 16 and 17, two issues are particularly striking: (i) a number of sentences are (quite randomly, indeed) introduced by a verb in the third person singular or plural. Please reformulate these sentences by spelling out the subject in the first sentence position. The current formulation looks like a collection of bullet points, which does not match the text here. If you rather want to have bullet points, please make this also graphically explicit; (ii) most sentences are formulated in a way that is not comprehensible in English. One really needs to make an effort to even understand the sense of some of these points (e.g. on p. 17: “Could besides presenting the access possibilities”). Please re-formulate.

- p. 17: “The sample lacks youth who are completely out of school” > This is not a good formulation. Do the authors mean “The sample does not consider student dropout”/“youth who have left education”? Please also be more specific.

- p. 18: “The study [2] cited in the literature review,” > no comma

- p. 18: “is similar with” > similar to

- p. 18: “but she was not among the …” > “it”, not “she”

 

Author Response

Review

“Emerging themes for digital accessibility in education”

 General assessment: 

• The paper addresses research gaps in the domain of digital accessibility in education. The authors review the recent scientific literature up to February 2023 as found in Web of Science and Scopus and the presence / treatment of topics concerning digital / information accessibility in these sources. They tentatively (in my view, however, this is not made sufficiently explicit in the paper) that some themes are more recurringly treated in the literature than others The authors also make a point that some gaps should be filled in the existing literature, e.g., research on indexes, indicators, or the attitudinal dimension.

 

•   In general, the topic of this study is relevant (especially to the special issue in which it should be published) and could be developed in a very interesting way, but the paper has a number of issues that imperatively need to be considered before the author re-submits it. In particular (but see below [“Content” and “Formal aspects”] for details):

 

-      Unfortunately, the English used in this paper is terrible. Many expressions are not idiomatic (in some cases I did not even understand what the authors mean). Only because of this, I would suggest re-submission: the article cannot be published in this form, since no one could possibly read it. I suggest the authors should have it read by a native speaker and re-submit it only after comprehensive revision.

 

-      Many points made in the paper are unclear or extremely superficial. Maybe this is due to the language. Below, you find some suggestions to improve the informativity of the text. In some cases, I did not understand what was meant by given terms or expressions.

 

-      The conclusions are not stated clearly enough.

 

For this reason, I tend to believe that the paper cannot be published in the present form. Instead of proposing rejection, however, I would rather like to give the authors a chance to improve/fix/delete the issues pointed out in this report and re-submit a significantly revised version of the article. The revised version must not only consider the points made here, but also provide a much more in-depth analysis of the data collected in the empirical study and contain a contextualization of the results of the study.

 

Therefore, my overall recommendation is:

RECONSIDER AFTER MAJOR REVISION

 

Content:

- p. 1: “Thus, the characteristics of digital accessibility and research on it are important to promote positive experiences and opportunities for citizens to access technologies and utility public services, considering that since the mid-1990s the world has become heavily digitized” > This is a repetition of what has already been made clear above. Please delete this sentence or reformulate it in order to add new information. Deleted

 

- p. 2: The first paragraph of section 2 – in particular its central part – does not seem to be part of a coherent text. Please make the connections between the single elements you list more clearer. Changed to: “Considering ensuring exchanges and easy digital interactions, spatial distribution of networked activities (digital environment), ease of access to systems services with the combination of infrastructure and development, consider too the distance between human activities through internet connection in the digital environment; understanding the function, organization and spatial relations of a digital environment, participating in the activities developed there, with safety, comfort, autonomy, total or assisted, and independence. 

Identifying functions of the digital space, defining how to effect the displacement and use in this space; possibility to exchange interpersonal information may be with the use of assistive technology or performing digital displacements between sites, platforms for education, work, leisure without barriers and allowing effective participation and realization of activities by all people.”

 

 

- p. 2: Paragraphs 2 and 3 of section 2: What is the difference between the concepts “information accessibility” and “digital accessibility” assumed here? Is there a difference? This is not made clear in this chapter, and the third paragraph abruptly introduces digital accessibility after defining information accessibility in the previous paragraph. Please add the missing information linking the two concepts. This is crucial in a paper like this. We think that was better take off the second paragraph to don’t cause confusion

 

- p. 3: The authors describe the methods by mentioning a search in two platforms using some strings that are made explicit in the text. However, they do not go into the type of papers considered at this point. Please also make this information explicit here. Added: “The search didn't define a type of papers, it was analyzed after with the results and the inclusion and exclusion criteria”.

 

- p. 4: “Older concepts from 2019 and 2018 are "special education…” > How were you able to determine that? Please say something more specific about the way you analyzed the data to come to this conclusion. Changed: Like showed in Figure 1 by colors, from 2019 and 2018 are more used concepts like:

 

- p. 8: “g were from the following authors: [8]; [7]; [15]; [16]; [17]; [18]; [3]; [19]; [20]; [21]; [5]; [22]; [23]” > Why are the authors listed in this counterintuitive order? If this needs to be done like this, please explain. Solved to intuitive order

 

- The points made in the introduction and in the two final sections of the paper are quite vague. Please be more explicit in spelling out your considerations.

Changed

 

- p. 18: “Another issue observed in the search is the question of the language in which the article was written, for it to have an international reach, it would be interesting if they were written in English, and several were found in Spanish or Portuguese” > But were the strings used not in English? Yes, the strings were in english but some results were in another language Spanish or Portuguese

 

 

Formal aspects:

 

- Why are the numbers referring to each of the references repeated twice? Please correct this. It was a problem of formatting, already solved.

 

- p. 1: Where the affiliation of the second author is indicated, please delete the blank space between “- e-mail: [email protected]” and the semicolon. Solved.

 

- General remark: As far as the English of this paper is concerned, I will just exemplarily make reference to some issues present in the first part of the article. Listing every single mistake and proposing a valid alternative would imply re-writing it, since virtually every sentence contains multiple mistakes or unidiomatic expressions. In general, my advice is to have the paper read by a native speaker before re-submitting:

 

- p. 1: “The aim of this research was to verify the gaps of search and future research about digital accessibility in education.” > Two comments: (i) the expression “gaps of search” is understandable, but not common in my English and arguably not really established in the academic prose (maybe) outside of some specialist terminologies: I would use “research gaps” or “gaps in research” or something like that; (ii) about the second part of the utterance: the only way I can interpret this sentence is in the sense that the authors would like to verify, besides the research gaps in this domain, also the GAPS IN FUTURE RESEARCH on this topic. What is that supposed to mean exactly? How do you investigate gaps in research that still do not exist? Please reformulate (e.g., by adding a verb in the second conjunct of this coordination). Changed for:  “The aim of this research was to verify the research gaps and future research about digital accessibility in education by analyzing articles in a systematic review”

 

- p. 1: “. This research carries out a systematic review linking terms of “digital accessibility”, “education”, “educational” and “teaching”” > linking this terms to what? Or what do the authors mean here? I do not understand this sentence. Do the authors mean that they will carry out a systematic review of the concepts listed below? If this is the case, please keep it simple and formulate this as it is. Changed for: “by relating the following terms to each other: “digital accessibility”, “education”, “educational” and “teaching”

 

 

- p. 1: “As a result, was found that…” > IT was found that Solved

 

. p. 1: “was not attend on result of the selected research of systematic review” > I do not understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. Is that some kind of Lusitanism in English? Changed for: “As a result, it was found that the architectonics and attitudinal dimensions of Sassaki [1] could not be encompassed in the typologies of articles resulting from the systematic review.”

 

- p. 1: “It was too observed the necessity to searches …” > The necessity to search … was also observed Solved

 

- p. 1: “to evaluate on digital education” > evaluate digital education Solved 

 

- p. 1: “it refers to a stigmas and discriminations with people with disabilities” > without “a”, since the following nouns are plural. Solved 

 

- p. 1: “although they are not specific on education area, but that can be adopted for it.” > This is not a good academic formulation. Also, what is the referent of the “that” used as a subject of the second sentence? The subject of the previous one is a sungular… Changed for this

 

- p. 1: “The broadband connection nowadays is SO ESSENTIAL LIKE the access of electric energy and drinking water > as essential as Solved 

 

- p. 1: “to guaranty equality in the areas…” > guarantee Solved 

 

- p. 1: “Furthermore, the digital technology” > no definite article Solved

 

- p. 1: “…digital technology is already a characteristic ubiquitous in modern life, like computer, internet, smartphones, digital television, smart technology …” > This is not a good formulation. The second part of the sentence can only be interpreted as an exemplification of OTHER characteristics. The numeration should therefore be positioned after “digital technology”, not at the end of the utterance. Changed for : “Furthermore, digital technology [3] is already a characteristic ubiquitous in modern life, represented by items such as computer, internet, smartphones, digital television, smart technology, and Internet of Things – IoT.”

 

- p. 1: “has become a right of access to the city” > I do not understand what this means Changed for: “Thus, ensuring the population's digital accessibility means giving them the right to access the city, health, and education”

 

- p. 1: “access to connect and computerize public institutions” > Do the authors mean “to connecting and computerizing…” or “to connected and computerized…”? Yes, to connecting and computerizing

 

- p. 1. “; digital public services (websites, applications, digital services) that are not sufficiently adapted for all population groups and therefore may require the development and implementation of appropriate standards” > Where is the main verb in this sentence? “to ensure”, at the beginning of the sentence, because it is a continuation of that sentence

 

- p. 1: “there is a significant increase” > there has been Solved

 

- p. 1, penultimate line: This is already the third “thus” on this page: please use another connective. Moreover, the adverb “thus” has a consecutive meaning, which is absent here (the authors say that “thus, the paper will be focused on XYZ”, but this is not a consequence of what has been said above). The sentence can more naturally start in the following way: “This study seeks to identify…”. Solved.

 

- p. 2: Please delete the space to the left of “If so, …”. Solved.

 

- p. 2: “what has it been validated (applied) on which audience?” > without “it” Solved

 

- p. 2: “in other publics” > This is not English, where “public” is originally only an adjective. I think the authors mean “audiences here”. Solved

 

- p. 2: “on Digital Accessibility and Digital Accessibility in teaching” > I would disambiguate this by adding “in general” (or something similar) after the first “Digital Accessibility”. Solved

 

- p. 2: “Making an allusion” > I don’t think this is what the authors mean here. An allusion in English is something else. Allusion like reference to something, maintained

 

- p. 3: “The number of articles…” > Do the authors mean “the amount”/“the scope” here? Yes, changed for the amount. 

 

- p. 4: “In viewing by color, it was identified that the topic of digital accessibility appears more between the years 2019 and 2020” > What does “in viewing by color” mean? Moreover “appears more” is not an expression that is idiomatic in English. Maybe “occurs more frequently” (or something similar including an adverb)? Changed for: “In the color's map” and “occurs more frequently”

 

- p. 4, second paragraph below the figure: all expressions/terms in quotation marks contain a (low) comma that should appear outside of the inverted commas. Solved

 

- p. 4: “makes clearer the intensity” > makes … clearer Solved

 

- p. 6: “As for the authors, Table 3, and Figure 3 show Fioretti, Rovira, Turro and Martinez, in this order of year of publication, but with greater strength of Turro > Martinez > Busqueta > Fioretti > Rovira.” > I do not understand this sentence. What is this “greater strength” that the authors are making reference to here with respect to the second group of authors? Changed for “higher incidence”

 

- p. 7: “It was verified which articles were related” > This kind of impersonal structure does not exist in English. Please replace this with something like “We verified which articles…” or “The type of articles … was verified” (this is just an example: it means that what is veriefied should become the subject of the sentence). Changed for “We verified…”

 

- p. 8, Table 4: “Total articles read complete” > This cannot be expressed like this in English. Maybe “read completely”? Solved

 

- p. 8: “most of the articles read, 38.46%” >A comma is missing after the percentage value (which is supposed to be interpreted as an apposition here). Solved

 

- p. 10: “although the year 2023 is in February at the time of writing this study, the number of citations of the selected article in this year is quite representative.” > What is this supposed to mean? It means that although this is a new article at data bases it has already a good number of citations.

 

- p. 10, caption of Table 6: The first word should probably be capitalized like in the other captions. Solved

 

- p. 12: “The levels of education presented in the selected articles were predominantly higher education, 61.54%, in 15.38% it did not specify the level of education and the rest, in 7.69% was in the U.S…” > I do not understand this sentence. Please reformulate. Changed for “The levels of education presented in the selected articles were 61.54% in higher education, 15.38% did not specify the level of education and 7.69% in the U.S. K-12,”

 

- p. 12: “it was verified the occurrence of the terms” > the occurrence … was verified Solved

 

- p. 12: “It is interesting how much the terms accessibility” > It is interesting to notice how much … (this kind of impersonal construction does not exist in English). Solved

 

- p. 14: “Here are presented the possible gaps…” > Here, the possible gaps … are presented Solved

 

- p. 16: The title of section 5 should probably be “Discussion”, not “Discussions”. Solved

 

- p. 16: “Within the studies read” > “In the studies considered here/in the present paper, …” Solved

 

- Between pp. 16 and 17, two issues are particularly striking: (i) a number of sentences are (quite randomly, indeed) introduced by a verb in the third person singular or plural. Please reformulate these sentences by spelling out the subject in the first sentence position. The current formulation looks like a collection of bullet points, which does not match the text here. If you rather want to have bullet points, please make this also graphically explicit; (ii) most sentences are formulated in a way that is not comprehensible in English. One really needs to make an effort to even understand the sense of some of these points (e.g. on p. 17: “Could besides presenting the access possibilities”). Please re-formulate.

Solved

 

- p. 17: “The sample lacks youth who are completely out of school” > This is not a good formulation. Do the authors mean “The sample does not consider student dropout”/“youth who have left education”? Please also be more specific. Solved

 

- p. 18: “The study [2] cited in the literature review,” > no comma Solved

 

- p. 18: “is similar with” > similar to Solved

 

- p. 18: “but she was not among the …” > “it”, not “she” Solved

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors tried to take into account the comments. Work improved. However, the authors did not bring the list of references to the standards of the journal. The authors also did not reveal the content of the logic of the work, but simply left the list of block names. Each section shows something important for the article and this meaning should be reflected in one or two sentences.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

 

Attached please find our revision to our article entitled “Emerging Themes for Digital Accessibility in Education.” We have addressed the reviewers’ questions and concerns in a point-by-point manner.

 

However, the authors did not bring the list of references to the standards of the journal.

A: Changed to the standards of the journal 

 

The authors also did not reveal the content of the logic of the work, but simply left the list of block names.  Each section shows something important for the article and this meaning should be reflected in one or two sentences.

Added: “In the conceptual foundations section we define digital accessibility, standard internet speeds, and types of digital education and items to ensure equity in technological access on education. In the materials and methods section we define the way the systematic review was carried out, including the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the bibliometric analyses using VOSviewer software. In the results section we present the analyses of selected articles from the systematic review by year of publication, number of citations, country or region of study, theoretical or practical article, journals, adopted methodology, levels of education, target audience, context/theme and gaps. In the discussion we compare the authors cited with the architectural dimension of Sassaki [1] and in the conclusion we provide the final considerations of this search."

 

As a result of these suggestions, we believe our manuscript is substantially improved. We hope it now meets the high standards of Sustainability - Special Issue "Digital Education for Sustaining Our Society". 

 

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prado, Bruna de Brito; Gobbo Júnior, José Alcides; Bezerra, Barbara Stolte São Paulo State University (Unesp), School of Engineering, Campus Bauru Engenheiro Luiz Edmundo Carrijo Coube Avenue, number 14-01 –Vargem Limpa – City: Bauru – State: SP - CEP 17033-360 +55 14 99786-1331 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

There is some improvement in this new version of the paper. Unfortunately, however, I see that the author has only superficially modified what could be modified without too much effort, which is a pity.

It is still unclear, for instance, how it is possible for a reasearch paper "to verify the [...] future research" (p. 1). 

I do not think that the paper has been reviewed by a native speaker (e.g.: "in the color's map", p. 4).

Also, the conclusions are still not stated clearly enough.

I am sorry to have to propose rejection for this paper, but I do not see any other option.

(see above)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

 

Attached please find our revision to our article entitled “Emerging Themes for Digital Accessibility in Education.” We have addressed the reviewers’ questions and concerns in a point-by-point manner.

It is still unclear, for instance, how it is possible for a reasearch paper "to verify the [...] future research" (p. 1). 

A: Changed only to “The aim of this research was to verify the research gaps about digital accessibility in education by analyzing articles in a systematic review”

 

I do not think that the paper has been reviewed by a native speaker (e.g.: "in the color's map", p. 4).

A: This version was revised by a native speaker.

 

Also, the conclusions are still not stated clearly enough.

A: Conclusion was changed.

As a result of these suggestions, we believe our manuscript is substantially improved. We hope it now meets the high standards of Sustainability - Special Issue "Digital Education for Sustaining Our Society". 

 

Thank you for your consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Prado, Bruna de Brito; Gobbo Júnior, José Alcides; Bezerra, Barbara Stolte São Paulo State University (Unesp), School of Engineering, Campus Bauru Engenheiro Luiz Edmundo Carrijo Coube Avenue, number 14-01 –Vargem Limpa – City: Bauru – State: SP - CEP 17033-360 +55 14 99786-1331 [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected].

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I see that the authors have now improved the structure of the paper and made the conclusions more explicit.