Urban Transformations for Universal Accessibility: Socio-Educational Dialogue

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The idea of the research is interesting. Generally, the study designs is clear, however the scope of articles selected for the study and presented information are very selective thus limited what decrease the scientific value of presented material on this so important topic.

 

Main comments and suggestions for Authors:

 

The title is clear. There are many key words what suggest that the study cover many aspects related to the topic, while they are rather limited in the text – the keywords should be selected more carefully and should not exceed the scope of the presented material.

The Abstract is rather general but the main idea was presented.

The section of Introduction is developed and the Authors included important aspects creating the background for the study. However,  some more relations to official documents and guidelines/recommendations related to the creation of more inclusive thus universal accessibility in the context of socio-educational sphere should be also presented to argue better the scope of conducted study. Generally, more references related to presented topic is needed, especially while the topic of universal accessibility related to urban design and educational spaces is much developed. This part needs improvement.

The main aim of the study is formulated (lines: 95-98) - is clear but suggest the very wide scope and number of analyzed literature/studies.

 

Section 2. Materials and Methods shows mostly the process of selection of the articles qualified and used for the study. However, the main concern is the very small number of articles qualified for the detailed study. Issues linking the universal accessibility and the urban design context with the educational sphere are raised in many publications since more than 2 decades and even if a significant part of them concerns only selected aspects, they should not be eliminated from the study - they should be also (especially) taken into account to point out the limitations in the current stage of activities. Limiting the study to only 5 cases concerning other places/countries, year of publication and the scope of research as a basis for determining general trends throughout the 21st century is insufficient - it is a methodological mistake and undermines the scientific soundness of the study. Regarding the above-mentioned reasons, the comparison of studied articles is rather the presentation of some aspects than the basis for guidelines and solid/reliable conclusions for the topic.

Summing up, the idea of presented study is interesting but the proposed scope of research do not create a basis for presenting the trends called by the Authors as those of the 21st century. In my opinion it is rather a study of selected cases than an argument for universal conclusions. My suggestion is to change the purpose of the study or significantly expand the scope of the studied articles/literature. I can’t recommend the manuscript to be published in its present form.

Author Response

1. Thank you very much for your suggestion and comments. 

First of all, as you mentioned, a new search has been conducted, during which some descriptors have been replaced, modified, and removed. Following the application of the exclusion criteria, this new search has resulted in a selection of 29 articles, which has significantly increased the sample size.

While it is still limited considering the extensive literature published on universal accessibility and education, the purpose of the review is precisely based on the explicit inclusion of the social sphere. This purpose addresses the socio-educational dimension or dialogue as the starting point of the study, and demonstrates that such explicitness greatly enriches the research. All of this is duly justified in the introduction of the article, as well as in various points of its development. In our opinion, this is precisely where the novelty of this review may lie. Nevertheless, we appreciate the reviewer's indication, as, indeed, the sample from the previous article jeopardized its scientific rigor.

2. 

Key words have been reduced and adjusted to the topic.

3

The abstract has been slightly modified and adjusted

4. 

References and official documents, European guidelines, and recommendations have been added. Other bibliographic references have been included.

5. 

Goals have been reduced and adjusted to the topic.

6.- 

See comment 1

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is titled "Urban Transformations for Universal Accessibility: Socio-Educational Dialogue". The paper presents an important perspective on the intersection of urban planning and accessibility issues. However, I would like to suggest some modifications that could significantly enhance the quality and impact of your research. Here are my detailed comments:

 

1. Expansion of Literature Review:

In the abstract, you mention a detailed exploration of six articles. While this might be a manageable number for in-depth analysis, it limits the generalizability of your findings. Given the extensive literature available on urban planning and accessibility, increasing the sample size of reviewed studies would strengthen the robustness of your conclusions. A more comprehensive review will ensure that your study covers a broader spectrum of existing research and therefore offers a more solid foundation for your argument.

2. Visual Representation of Research Landscape:

It would be beneficial to include graphical representations (such as charts or graphs) in Chapter 3 to illustrate the distribution of high-impact papers in your field. This visualization can provide readers with a clear overview of the current state of research, highlighting trends and gaps that your work addresses or fills.

3. Synthesis of Strategies:

Throughout the paper, there is a tendency to recount the findings of individual studies without synthesizing them into a cohesive narrative. To improve the flow and utility of your paper, consider integrating a summary section where you distill the different strategies discussed into a set of overarching principles or guidelines. This will not only avoid repetitive paraphrasing but also offer practical insights for urban planners and policymakers.

4. Discussion of Limitations:

Your conclusion should acknowledge the limitations of your study. This includes discussing potential biases in your selection of articles, any gaps in the literature that you were unable to address, and the implications of these limitations for future research. Acknowledging limitations does not weaken your study; rather, it demonstrates scholarly integrity and provides a roadmap for subsequent investigations.

Author Response

1. Thank you very much for your suggestion and comments. 

First of all, as you mentioned, a new search has been conducted, during which some descriptors have been replaced, modified, and removed. Following the application of the exclusion criteria, this new search has resulted in a selection of 29 articles, which has significantly increased the sample size.

While it is still limited considering the extensive literature published on universal accessibility and education, the purpose of the review is precisely based on the explicit inclusion of the social sphere. This purpose addresses the socio-educational dimension or dialogue as the starting point of the study, and demonstrates that such explicitness greatly enriches the research. All of this is duly justified in the introduction of the article, as well as in various points of its development. In our opinion, this is precisely where the novelty of this review may lie. Nevertheless, we appreciate the reviewer's indication, as, indeed, the sample from the previous article jeopardized its scientific rigor.

2. 

We have included several graphs to clarify some issues and provide readers with a more visual and enlightening perspective. Likewise, Table 1 continues to support the synthesis process.

3.

We have introduced a summary section, which aims to present a more cohesive and accurate narration of what has been discussed. Additionally, the discourse has been organized, synthesized, repetitive elements have been eliminated, and the text has been structured throughout.

4

Study limitations have been introduced, as rightly suggested by the reviewer.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This article addresses a very important subject. Therefore, a systematic review on universal accessibility in urban settings and its implications for socio-educational inclusion are very useful and relevant.

Congratulations for working on such an important issue.

The manuscript is overall well-written. Nevertheless, some phrases may come across as redundant and unclear. Furthermore, this review is based on only six articles, which is unfortunate. Synonyms and related terms could enhance the search made, e.g. “mobility” for urban accessibility.  

Moreover, the use of additional databases similar to Google Scholar and JSTOR. Including books, book chapters and peer reviewed international conferences could also help. Also, the examination of the examination of the reference lists of the six selected articles could uncover additional studies that may not have appeared in the initial search. On the other hand, the small number of articles highlights the need for more primary research to be conducted on this important topic.  

Overall, the limited number of studies included and some issues with clarity raise questions about its readiness for publication.

However, the article presents a very important topic. I believe that following several improvements this article would be appropriate for publication.

Please, consider the following comments.  

The English language used in the article is generally correct, but there are a few instances where the writing style comes across as overly formal.

The use of words like "corpus" and "nexus" feels unnecessarily complex.

Phrases such as "integral human development" and "socio-spatial educational landscapes" are heavy and could be rephrased in plainer language.

Terms similar to “literary corpus”, “confluence”, “paucity”, while relevant in an academic context, may alienate readers who are not familiar with such specialized language. Simplifying them could enhance understanding and text flow.

Also, some of the exclusion criteria used need to be explained even further. More specifically “papers that did not strictly conform to the research objectives” and “studies with missing instruments and/or methodological flaws” could be considered biased reasons of exclusion. Could you please provide examples of methodological flaws without naming any published research?

L113: Fix de

L185-186: Heavy sentence.

L352-362: This paragraph is redundant. It does not offer enough insights on what has been done to improve accessibility and promote inclusiveness in the studied campus. Please either provide more information regarding what has been done or reduce the length of the paragraph. Furthermore, there seems to be a confusion regarding the authors gender (L353: “she concludes”, L358: “His ultimate goal”, L401 “he notes”). Finally, if in the following section “Proposals for improvement” more insights are provided, what is the point of this part?

L363: The word “recall” is confusing in this context. Alternatively, the words “note," "state," or "mention" could be used for clarity.

L363-368: This paragraph describes the benefits of inclusive design in broad terms. It does not examine the specific findings or arguments presented by Alhusban and Almshaqbeh. Phrases like "provides means to ensure access and equal participation" and "paves the way for equality" are broad and seem generic and unhelpful. Please eliminate redundancies and provide insights or specific evidence. The comment made here applies to other parts of this manuscript as well.   

L384: Please explain the phrase “ecological relationships of the child's environment with the environment” as it seems vague.  Please avoid the word “ecological” and ecology in general as it is a rather complicated issue to be touched on here. I would suggest the use of the phrase "Interactions between a child's immediate surroundings with the larger environmental context" or something similar.

L404: Here “recall” fits better.

I am looking forward to receiving the revised version of this article.

Kind regards

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language used in the article is generally correct, but there are a few instances where the writing style comes across as overly formal. This may alienate readers.

Author Response

1. Dear reviewer: Thank you very much for your suggestion and comments. 

First of all, as you mentioned, a new search has been conducted, during which some descriptors have been replaced, modified, and removed. New descriptors have been added, including "mobility." This has significantly increased the number of jobs included. Following the application of the exclusion criteria, this new search has resulted in a selection of 29 articles, which has significantly increased the sample size.

While it is still limited considering the extensive literature published on universal accessibility and education, the purpose of the review is precisely based on the explicit inclusion of the social sphere. This purpose addresses the socio-educational dimension or dialogue as the starting point of the study, and demonstrates that such explicitness greatly enriches the research. All of this is duly justified in the introduction of the article, as well as in various points of its development. In our opinion, this is precisely where the novelty of this review may lie. Nevertheless, we appreciate the reviewer's indication, as, indeed, the sample from the previous article jeopardized its scientific rigor.

2. 

To make the text flow better, some sections that could be cumbersome have been lightened up. We really appreciate the suggestion, as we believe that, along with the above, it has notably improved its scientific rigor and discursive quality.

3.

We really appreciate the suggestions made by the reviewer. We have cross-checked the entries with Google Scholar and JSTOR. The search yielded over 18,000 entries, which seems unmanageable. However, as we’ve already mentioned, we’ve refined our search in the scientific databases of WoS and Scopus, getting more results from different descriptors. As the reviewer advised, we also went through the references of the selected articles. As you can see, the search has increased significantly.

4. 

Efforts have been made to write a smoother and simpler English, focusing on the clarity criteria mentioned.

5.

The word "corpus" has been removed, leaving just "literario." The word “nexus” has been changed to “link.”

6.

"Integral human development" has been replaced by "human development." For its part, as noted in the text, "socio-spatial educational landscapes" is a term coined by Heinrich & Million, which has been used by various authors in the same way. It has been put in quotes instead of italics to make it clear that it is an established nomenclature.

7.

There has been an effort to simplify the language and avoid overly complex terms.

8. 

The phrase "methodological flaws" has been removed, and theoretical articles have been included. The exclusion criteria followed for the phrase "the articles that do not strictly align with the research objectives" are explained in parentheses.

9. 

Paragraphs have been shortened, and redundancies have been avoided throughout the text.

10.

As the reviewer pointed out, and to avoid any potential confusion, the word “ecological” is being avoided, and their suggestions are being implemented (thank you very much). The indicated errors have been corrected.

Thank you very much for the careful review and response.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate all the work done by the Authors. Most of my suggestions have been introduced.

The presentation of all stages of the study has been improved.

The Abstract is clear, and the main idea of the study and the results have been highlighted. The keywords are better selected for the scope of the presented review.

The introduction was much more developed, and the Authors included more aspects, creating a wider background for the study. The study's main aim is directly related to the expanded scope of analyzed literature/studies.

The Section on Materials and Methods was improved. The main method – the data collection process - is briefly described and generally clear. Especially Table 1 (in the appendix), including all the main data of studied literature items, is very useful and valuable – the data presented in Table 1 could be a bit shortened (more compact) in the final version.

The section on Results and Discussion was divided into main subsections related to the studied aspects. It is a bit difficult to have both results and discussion together in a kind of continuous text; however, it may be accepted regarding the specifics of the manuscript structure. At the same time, the section 4. Proposals for improvement sound more like a part of the Discussion, which is a part of the previous section: Results and Discussion, in my opinion. Regarding the section of Discussion, which is not separate, my suggestion is to add the present section 4. to section 3 as a part of it to avoid using too many sections in the manuscript.

The section 5. Summary repeats some aspects presented in section 7. Conclusions. It is not clear why the Authors added this section. In my opinion, the information of both above-mentioned sections belongs to the section: Conclusions. They should be linked to create one section and also shortened. The limitations of the study are very important and valuable.

Summing up, the idea of the presented study is interesting, and the proposed scope of research creates a basis for proposed conclusions, which are a part of trends characteristic for the 21st century in the studied field. The manuscript needs some final reorganization of its last parts (Results and Discussion, Conclusions) to make the order of presented data and information more compact and clear. I recommend publishing the manuscript after the last improvement/corrections.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Your comments and suggestions are greatly appreciated

Regarding the indications, we will respond to them one by one:

1) As suggested by the reviewer, Table 1 has been synthesized and made more compact

2) The division of the Results and discussion into subsections responds to the categorization made for their interpretation. Certainly, and as the reviewer indicates, the section Proposal for improvements should be a part of section 3 (not 4) As can be seen, it has already been duly corrected.

3) Summary and Conclusions have been linked and reorganized into a single section.

 

Thank you very much for your reviewer.

 

Best regards, 

 

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, there has been a significant improvement, and it is recommended that the format and writing coherence be optimized.

Author Response

Dear reviewer: 

 

thank you very much for your comment. As you suggested, the format and writing coherence have been optimized.

 

Best regards, 

 

The authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for considering all the suggestions made and for responding to each comment. The manuscript has been vastly improved. Overall, this research is valuable, interesting, and deals with a very important topic.

I believe that your work should be published.

Please attend to the following final minor revisions and suggestions. I look forward to seeing your work published.

Congratulations!

 

L31: The word "researchs" should be "research," as "research" does not take a plural form. I would also use "noteworthy" instead of "striking," but that’s up to you.

 

L44-62: This part is wonderfully written and conveys important information. Even though it is acceptable not to use references for your own goal in research, the text is too long to be unsupported. Therefore, some areas in the text could benefit from referencing existing literature. More specifically, for lines 48-50 ("The starting point is to understand…") a reference would support the idea that accessibility in educational spaces is influenced by "multidimensional barriers.” Also, for lines 55-60 ("Compared to the considerable literature…") each topic mentioned (e.g., architectural accessibility, universal design, UDL) would benefit from citations showing that there is indeed considerable literature on these subjects.

 

L55: The phrase "of the social" seems incorrect. "Of the society" would be more accurate. Please ignore this comment if the phrase "of the social" conveys specific meaning.

 

 

L276-283: This part seems a bit hasty. The figures mentioned (Figure 2 and Figure 3) are not referenced in the main body of the text. It would be beneficial to explicitly refer to them in the text to clarify their purpose. Also, the explanation regarding the methodologies used in the selected articles is somewhat unclear and could benefit from rephrasing for better clarity. Furthermore, it is unclear why only part of the data is visualized. It would be helpful to either visualize all the relevant data or explain the rationale for focusing on specific aspects. Finally, please consider merging Figure 2 and Figure 3 into a single figure. This would allow you to present both the number of selected articles and the methodologies in one place.

 

L359-362: This paragraph should be re-written for clarity and better flow. A suggestion is the following: "Finally, the review includes several studies in which the social dimension is the main theme, presented as a broader and more complex framework where education plays a key role alongside other aspects of community life. The inclusion of these studies is explained in the following section."

 

L365: The inclusion and the relative results regarding K-8 schools are fascinating. Could you please include a line introducing the concept of K-8 schools for those not familiar with this system?

 

L372: It would be best to place Figure 3 after the paragraph that mentions it. On a personal note, I am not a fan of pie charts as they seem a bit old-fashioned. It would be best to maintain uniformity in all figures if the data permits. When data are not related to “time,” bar charts are a good choice.

 

L381-388: This is very interesting. Please connect the paragraph with the following to bond with the information provided in line 394. Are there any relevant references providing a direct comparison between urban and rural? A brief comparison would be interesting.

 

L480: I understand the reason, but the "i.e." in the reference bracket is uncommon and not very helpful. The same comment for line 520.

 

L486: Please replace "researchs" with "research."

 

L595-600: This is excellent. Please elaborate and expand.

 

L678: The issues of acoustics and comfort are very interesting. Consider expanding on these topics. I recommend the following literature by Torresin et al. (https://doi.org/10.3390/su12156054) and Pellegatti et al. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110194).

 

L872: The term "socio-educational cities" is somewhat unclear and may require further explanation or simplification.

 

L873: Please fix the typo "orfer" to "order of things."

 

L908: Please fix the typo "itsel" to "itself."

 

L910-911: Please fix the repetition of the phrase "and its and its."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several typos and some syntax issues have been highlighted. Other than that, the manuscript is okay.

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

Your careful reading and review are greatly appreciated

Regarding the indications, we will respond to them one by one:

1) The word "researchs" has been corrected and properly written (in singular)

2) As the reviewer suggests, various references have been included both in relation to the “multidimensional barriers” and to the topics mentioned below. We sincerely believe that this gives greater consistency to this part of the report

3) The phrase "of the social" has been corrected here and duly replaced by  "of the society"

4) Figures 2 and 3 have been unified  and referenced in the text. The methodology has been clarified .

5) Thank you very much for your suggestion. We incorporate the proposed paragraph in replacement of the previous, less clear one ( L 321-324)

6) We explain briefly the concept k-8 schools (L 328 -331)

7) The difference between rural and urban areas are expand and connected (L 345 -375)

8) i. e. in brackets are deleted

9) corrected

10) Thank you so much for your recommendations aboaut acoustic and comfort. They are very interesting.. We include them and expand the issue (L. 606-625)

11) The term "socio-educational cities" is deleted and replaced by the duly referenced description of campuses as “small-scale cities” (L 802-804).

12) "orfer" is replaced by "order"

13) corrected ("itself)

14) corrected