Keys to Build an Inclusive University System: The Case of Spanish Public Universities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is an interesting one, with a significant potential in policy terms. Consistently, the authors provide a policy-focused text which however does not reach the status of an academically relevant study.

The manuscript sounds as a policy brief, provides a series of guidelines for universities and policy makers but does not provide any scientific contribution to the study of inclusive education. The text has a normative approach (it is important to.../ two alternatives are proposed.../universities should committ...) but it is nothing more than a wish list of actions that universities should undertake. 

The article is not based on any empirical material but the authors say that their arguments are gounded on four studies (bibliographic material). However these four studies are never clearly mentioned nor analyzed (e.g. page 2 row 64 "for this study..." which one?; page 3 row 148 "participation of 1,479 students. 479 students from the Universidad Rey Juan Carlo..." there is no reference to the study name/authors/date and the number of students changes).

Review papers of relevant literature can be a useful tool for researchers and can contribute to advancement of knowledge. But this article only relies on 4 studies, not referenced, not described in details and not placed in context with the rest of the relevant literature, all elements that do not qualify the present article as worth of publication.

No reference to the major trends ongoing in higher education are mentioned. E.g. it looks like that the responsibility for the implementation of sustainable education is sole responsability of universities, while the global trends that HE institutions have to face are completely ignored, such as neo-liberal reforms aimed at cost-cutting and shrinking public investment, or the increasing relevance given to market forces in shaping the academic curricula.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Regarding your comments, we must say that this work also extracts the conclusions of empirical works developed by the group of authors and published in journals indexed in JCR and SJR (Q1 and Q2). These papers have not been adequately referenced at the suggestion of the editor to guarantee anonymity in the peer review process. In this sense, the most important references have been kept blind in the text.

A brief paragraph has been introduced in the introduction that argues the purpose of the paper and refers to some of the empirical works that support the keys suggested in the article (lines 40-44).

A clarifying text is included in lines 69 and 70 in response to one of the reviewer's comments. The erroneous reference to the number of students (line 158, actually 176) due to a drafting error is corrected. Corrections made in line 154-158, 201-206, 264-266, 273-278, 301-304, 309-311

Minor changes in lines 79, 215, 244, 258, 411

Regarding the last comment we would like to indicate that the work is oriented to the guarantee of inclusive education in the university environment, for which it is necessary an adequate implementation of policy, culture and values of inclusion of the higher education institution. These aspects are specific to the institution and should be reflected in the strategic plans, so that the influence of neoliberal policies, although they have a clear impact on budgets and curriculum development, do not define the policy that a particular university adopts towards inclusion, since it is influenced by the values of its management teams.

Reviewer 2 Report

1 Introduction University and Agenda 2030 is well introduced.

2 Conclusión is reasonably proposed based on above analysis.

3 All references are listed in coherent format.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review.

A brief paragraph has been introduced in the introduction that argues the purpose of the paper and refers to some of the empirical works that support the keys suggested in the article (lines 40-44).

A clarifying text is included in lines 69 and 70 in response to one of the reviewer's comments. The erroneous reference to the number of students (line 158, actually 176) due to a drafting error is corrected. Corrections made in line 154-158, 201-206, 264-266, 273-278, 301-304, 309-311

Minor changes in lines 79, 215, 244, 258, 411

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting paper which provides some discussion on how to support Spanish universities to become more inclusive. The discussion is aligned with SDG4 and supported by a wide range of sources of information. Overall, this theoretical /essay paper uses literature and some empirical studies to develop the main argument.

My main concern is the use of the 4 empirical studies to illustrate the three areas that universities must address. Those studies are not fully explained. Authors need to provide more details of the quantitative studies to show their relevance (e.g. how many different universities participate, characteristics of the participants- course/subject etc.). In the same way, qualitative studies also need to be explained. When that information is released, it is important to explain how they can be translated to a discussion of the Spanish University Case.

The value of the paper is not only related to the use of the 4 studies but on the revision of different material that include policy documents, academic literature and reports that used to build your argument.

Other relevant comments:

·        Please review the sentence in p.3, lines 136-137. It is not clear

·        Please review the sentence in p.2, lines 57-61. It is very long- not clear.

·        “Universal Design” is a rich concept at the centre of some of your ideas. It needs to be explained for a wider audience (including critics and barriers to its implementation). It is not only about saying that universities should embrace universal design but explaining how it could happen in more detail (e.g. including references to good practices in other national or international universities)

·        In p.4-line 173. Explain what DUI stand for

·        I would had liked to see in the conclusions more on what is original in this paper and the possibility to be translated to other context. (What people from an international audience can learn?). Also some ideas about the struggles to implement some of the ideas posed in this article. (A more critical angle is needed)

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review. Regarding your comments, we must say that this work also extracts the conclusions of empirical works developed by the group of authors and published in journals indexed in JCR and SJR (Q1 and Q2). These papers have not been adequately referenced at the suggestion of the editor to guarantee anonymity in the peer review process. In this sense, the most important references have been kept blind in the text.

A brief paragraph has been introduced in the introduction that argues the purpose of the paper and refers to some of the empirical works that support the keys suggested in the article (lines 40-44).

A clarifying text is included in lines 69 and 70 in response to one of the reviewer's comments. The erroneous reference to the number of students (line 158, actually 176) due to a drafting error is corrected. Corrections made in line 154-158, 201-206, 264-266, 273-278, 301-304, 309-311

Minor changes in lines 79, 215, 244, 258, 411

Included correction on the acronym DUI, giving the complete text and its acronym in English (line 201).

The wording of line 136 and line 57 indicated by the reviewer are corrected.

The section on conclusions has been increased in response to the reviewer's suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As I reported in my first review report, the article did not deserve the "revise and resubmit" option, for the simple fact that this is not a research article. I now find myself obliged to review a revised version which does not include any structural change, but simply few new lines in which the papers references are cited and some conclusions are better explained. 

I do not have anything personal against the authors honestly, but the manuscript they presented has more to do with a policy brief or a positional paper. The revisions do not change the nature of this article, which is not a research paper. I confirm all the comments I did in the first round of revisions.

 

Author Response

Please see the attached revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an improved version. The changes introduced respond to the concerns highlighted in the previous report. 

Author Response

It has been replied to the reviewers' comments in the previous round.