Content and Other Resources Recommendations for Individuals with Intellectual Disability: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article performs an extensive review across research  literature about recommender systems in general and recommendation methods for individuals with ID. Overall, this is a very interesting paper and a useful contribution to research literature.

I have one suggestion to improve

Research Question is not clear;  need to clearly state the problem they addressed; In page 2 line 51 authors mentioned “In this paper, we look into the question of how a recommendation system can be adapted to and support people with ID.”; However, “adapted to and support”,  it is not clear, support with what and how?

 

Author Response

Q1-1  “I have one suggestion to improve. The research question is not clear;  need to clearly state the problem they addressed; In page 2 line 51 authors mentioned  "In this paper, we look into the question of how a recommendation system can be adapted to and support people with ID."; However, "adapted to and support",  it is not clear, support with what and how?”

We have revised the text to be more clear, specifically we changed the sentence stating in line 51 from:

“In this paper, we look into the question of how a recommendation system can be adapted to and support people with ID. “

to

“In this paper, we look into the question of how a recommendation system can be adapted to the special needs of people with ID.”

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the work is very relevant and has a strong social appeal, as it addresses a sensitive topic related to people with Intellectual Disabilities.

Section 3 is interesting, but I believe it can be more to the point. The authors could focus more on the discussion that the article proposes: recommender systems. At the end of the section, it would be interesting to summarize the theme for Recommendation for Individuals with ID (Section 4).

I found the description very focused on the articles. Perhaps it would have been better to present the research topic and present the articles involved in the topic. For example, articles that addressed "education" would all be in a section with that subject. Even though the works could be presented in more than one section, it would be easier to understand the domains.

Section 4.4 helps a lot in understanding the relationship between the articles.

Section 5 brings a parallel between what was identified in the mapping and the theoretical foundation sections of the article. I really enjoyed the analysis presented by the authors.

Author Response

Q2-1 “Section 3 is interesting, but I believe it can be more to the point. The authors could focus more on the discussion that the article proposes: recommender systems. “

Section 3 introduces the characteristics and special needs of people with ID, providing important background knowledge. This knowledge is then used to deliver core materials and discussion on recommender systems for people with ID. This is covered in Sections 4 and 5. For maintaining the focus of each section, we suggest that we do not extend the discussion on recommender systems from Sections 4-5 to also Section 3. 

 

Q2-2 “At the end of the section, it would be interesting to summarize the theme for Recommendation for Individuals with ID (Section 4).”

We added the following text on page 11, in line 510:

“Having discussed, on the one hand, how digital technologies can help individuals with ID and, on the other hand, the necessity of implementing adaptable solutions of such systems, in the next section we see how recommendation systems have been adapted to the needs of individuals with ID.”

 

Q2-3 “I found the description very focused on the articles. Perhaps it would have been better to present the research topic and present the articles involved in the topic. For example, articles that addressed "education" would all be in a section with that subject. Even though the works could be presented in more than one section, it would be easier to understand the domains.”

We revised the subsection organization of Section 4. Specifically, we introduced subsections for each domain (“4.1 Education”, “4.2 Entertainment”, “4.3 Employment”, “4.4 Outdoor\Indoor mobility”, and “4.5 Online shopping”)  and we restructured the works based on their domain. We also made sure that there is a short presentation of the topic at the very start of each domain before presenting the relevant works. 

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a useful and valuable review. There are just some minor revisions that I would like attended to.

a) please make the reasons for selecting your inclusion and exclusion criteria clear. They require justification

b) in terms of application it may be useful to differentiate between transport vs tourism, rather than use the term travel. Indeed, I am a little surprised that there is not more discussion of the appropriateness of items in mobility domains, while some may be cross domain.

Further comment may also be appropriate with respect to the appropriateness of items in different types of space which may otherwise be problematic for people with ID

Author Response

Q3-1 “Please make the reasons for selecting your inclusion and exclusion criteria clear. They require justification”

 

We included in the second last paragraph of Section 1, on page 2, which explains this methodology, additional clarifications about paper selection/exclusion criteria. Specifically we added the following text in line 70:  

“excluding works that: 1) deal with recommendation for 70

the general population, 2) propose a system targeted to individuals with ID but irrelevant 71

to recommendation, or 3) propose a recommendation scheme that concerns individuals 72

with ADHD/PTSD disorder or elderly people”.

 

Additionally, we introduced a new figure (Figure 1), similar to the PRISMA methodology (https://prisma-statement.org//PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram), which elaborates on the adopted methodology.

 

Q3-2 “In terms of application it may be useful to differentiate between transport vs tourism, rather than use the term travel. Indeed, I am a little surprised that there is not more discussion of the appropriateness of items in mobility domains, while some may be cross-domain. Further comment may also be appropriate with respect to the appropriateness of items in different types of space which may otherwise be problematic for people with ID”

Based on this and comment Q2-3 (i.e. the third comment of the reviewer 2), we revised the subsection organization of Section 4. As part of this re-organization, we introduced a new domain titled “indoor\outdoor mobility” (Section 4.4)  in which we comment on papers [132], [133], and [134]. We also replaced the term “travel” with the term transport in line 621.