Sustainable Inclusive Framework Studio for Inclusive Education—Perceptions of Teachers, Parents, and Students in United Arab Emirates
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for having the opportunity to review this article. It deals with an important topic, which is quite relevant and current. Inclusivity in schools is becoming more and more important aspect of creating a positive and effective learning environment for all students in modern societies.
In the introduction, the authors explain well the purpose and need for the research, and place it in context.
The literature review, with the help of which they demonstrate the topicality of the paper and the scientific framework, is up-to-date, although somewhat modest. Lev Vygotsky and Albert Bandura's theories are mentioned, but not explained and neither are listed in the literature section.
Presented Sustainable Inclusive Framework Studio (SIF-Studio) and its elements are an innovative approach, which adds to the importance of the paper.
Methodology: A short introduction to the theories on which the model is being constructed wouldn't harm. The sampling is well explained.
Results and discussion: There are long explanations, but they are necessary to explain the tables with numeric results.
Conclusion: Authors summarize the findings of the study, and strengthen the the importance of their results with findings from the secondary literature.
Two minor corrections to be made:
Typos - 3.1. Inculsivity
Improve the layout of Table 4, maybe use a smaller font
Author Response
Comment 1- Lev Vygotsky and Albert Bandura's theories are mentioned, but not explained and neither are listed in the literature section.
Response 1- Done ( page 5 paragraph 1)
Comment 2- There are long explanations, but they are necessary to explain the tables with numeric results.
Response 2- Done , detailing is removed and briefed with a heading for "overall perception" and is highlighted in yellow ( page 13,14)
Comment 3- improve the layout of Table 4, maybe use a smaller font
Response 3 - Done
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1.The title could be more precise, e.g., this study is based on research in a specific country, so evidence that is explicitly based on a particular country could be put directly in the title.
2. The abstract of the manuscript needs further refinement. The current abstract does not describe the empirical results and findings of this study, and specific and representative empirical results need to be clearly presented in the abstract.
3.In the introductory section, further elaboration is needed as to why this study was undertaken. In addition, in the introductory section, more information needs to be added on the specific organization of the subsequent content.
4.In the literature review section, it is not necessary for the authors to repeatedly state the objectives of this study, as this is already stated in the introduction section, but rather the specific research hypotheses should be stated.
5.In the Our SIF Studio section, it is recommended that the content be condensed, with some content appearing as appendices, and that the length of this section be minimized in the main text so as not to detract from readability.
6.In section 4. Methodology, the manner in which the survey is to be carried out and the quality control and assurance of the survey are to be clearly stated.
7.In the 5. Paradigm for the Design section, it is recommended that the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method be added, which helps to ensure that the experimental and control groups have as similar a sample as possible.
8.In the 6. Results and Discussion section, there is a need to further focus and highlight, not everything, but rather the key results should be highlighted and reported and discussed, and the less important content can appear as an appendix. In addition, it is recommended to add the return and discussion of the empirical results of Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method.
9.In 7. Conclusion section, the issue of external validity of this study needs to be emphasized.
Author Response
Comment 1- The title could be more precise, e.g., this study is based on research in a specific country, so evidence that is explicitly based on a particular country could be put directly in the title
Response 1- Done ( Page 1, Title highlighted)
Comment 2- The abstract of the manuscript needs further refinement. The current abstract does not describe the empirical results and findings of this study, and specific and representative empirical results need to be clearly presented in the abstract.
Response 2- Done (Page 1 Abstract, highlighted)
Comment 3- In the introductory section, further elaboration is needed as to why this study was undertaken. In addition, in the introductory section, more information needs to be added on the specific organization of the subsequent content
Response 3- Done (page 2 paragraph 3, highlighted)
Comment 4- In the literature review section, it is not necessary for the authors to repeatedly state the objectives of this study, as this is already stated in the introduction section, but rather the specific research hypotheses should be stated
Response 4- Done ( page 3 & 4 last & first paragraph, highlighted)
Comment 5- In the Our SIF Studio section, it is recommended that the content be condensed, with some content appearing as appendices, and that the length of this section be minimized in the main text so as not to detract from readability
Response 5- Done, the information is summarized and the details are moved to appendix.
Comment 6- Methodology, the manner in which the survey is to be carried out and the quality control and assurance of the survey are to be clearly stated
Response 6- Done, page number 8 last paragraph, highlighted .
Comment 7 -Paradigm for the Design section, it is recommended that the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method be added, which helps to ensure that the experimental and control groups have as similar a sample as possible
Response 7- Done, page 9 paragraph 2, highlighted
Comment 8- Results and Discussion section, there is a need to further focus and highlight, not everything, but rather the key results should be highlighted and reported and discussed, and the less important content can appear as an appendix. In addition, it is recommended to add the return and discussion of the empirical results of Propensity Score Matching (PSM) method
Response 8- Done , less important contents are removed. Since the stratified random sampling method was adapted for the study, empirical results of Propensity Score Matching (PSM) is not done.
Comment 9- Conclusion section, the issue of external validity of this study needs to be emphasized.
Response 9- Done, page 19 last paragraph, highlighted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsRevised manuscript meets publication standards.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The suggested revision I have observed in this paper is;
Comment 1- Is the article adequately referenced?
Response 1- Based on the first two reviewers comments the modifications and revisions were done with the previous paper and submitted.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
