A New Paradigm of Social Support: Circles of Support in Social Service Centers as a Tool for Systemic Change in Poland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a detailed and policy-relevant analysis of the feasibility of implementing “circles of support” for persons with disabilities in Polish social service centers. The paper is timely, well-grounded in national and international policy frameworks, and methodologically sound. The authors succeed in combining legal, financial, and organizational perspectives while adopting an action research approach in two municipalities.

The contribution is valuable and offers concrete insights for both practice and policy. However, some aspects require revision, particularly related to structure, clarity of exposition, and linguistic quality.

I recommend minor to moderate revision, primarily for language refinement, streamlining redundant sections, and enhancing international contextualization.

1. Title and Abstract

• The title is informative and accurate.

• The abstract is clear, but too dense. Consider simplifying phrasing and explicitly stating key results (e.g., “model is legally feasible and financially sustainable...”).

• Some terms (e.g., "action research methodology") could be briefly defined for non-specialists.

2. Introduction and Conceptual Background

• The introduction is comprehensive and well referenced.

• Section 2 is rich, but at times overly descriptive. Consider summarizing the historical and legal context more succinctly.

• Strength: solid grounding in empowerment theory, social capital, and deinstitutionalization.

• Suggestion: integrate more comparative international literature upfront, not only in the final discussion.

3. Methods

• Clear and consistent with the action research paradigm.

• The case selection (Goleniow and Milanówek) is appropriate and well justified.

• Suggest adding a brief explanation of how validity and reliability were ensured in qualitative observations or reflections.

• The large-scale survey of SAC/SSC staff (n = 500) is a major strength and should be highlighted more prominently.

4. Results

• Structured into three levels (legal, financial, and staffing): excellent.

• Tables and figures are informative; however, Diagram 1 and 2 could benefit from a clearer layout and English captions where applicable.

• In Section 3.2.2: more direct interpretation of cost differences and implications for scalability would enhance reader understanding.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

• The final discussion is rich, but too long. Streamlining subsections (e.g., Sweden vs. Netherlands vs. Poland) would help.

• The international comparison is very useful—suggest moving it earlier or expanding it into a dedicated subsection.

• Limitation section is appropriate and honest—well done.

• The contribution of “circles of support” to deinstitutionalization and personalization is well argued.

6. Writing and Structure

• Overall well structured, but the language is often complex and includes long sentences.

• The manuscript would greatly benefit from professional proofreading to improve fluency and clarity.

• Some paragraphs (e.g., 2.2, 3.2.2, 4) would benefit from clearer transitions and topic sentences.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is adequate for academic purposes but requires revision to improve clarity, conciseness, and grammatical accuracy. Long and overly formal sentences should be simplified, and technical terms better explained for an international audience.

A light professional edit is strongly recommended before publication.

Author Response

Rewiever 1

Authors: We would like to thank to the reviewer for great and constructive feedback. We do believe that the paper improved due to this comments. We have taken into account all comments.

This manuscript provides a detailed and policy-relevant analysis of the feasibility of implementing “circles of support” for persons with disabilities in Polish social service centers. The paper is timely, well-grounded in national and international policy frameworks, and methodologically sound. The authors succeed in combining legal, financial, and organizational perspectives while adopting an action research approach in two municipalities.

The contribution is valuable and offers concrete insights for both practice and policy.

Authors: Thank you.

However, some aspects require revision, particularly related to structure, clarity of exposition, and linguistic quality. I recommend minor to moderate revision, primarily for language refinement, streamlining redundant sections, and enhancing international contextualization.

1. Title and Abstract

• The title is informative and accurate.

Authors: thank you

• The abstract is clear, but too dense. Consider simplifying phrasing and explicitly stating key results (e.g., “model is legally feasible and financially sustainable...”).

Authors: We have introduce the changes. The language was simplified. (lines 8-28)

• Some terms (e.g., "action research methodology") could be briefly defined for non-specialists.

Authors: We have introduce proposed changes, action research was briefly defined. (lines 10-12)

2. Introduction and Conceptual Background

• The introduction is comprehensive and well referenced.

Authors: thank you

• Section 2 is rich, but at times overly descriptive. Consider summarizing the historical and legal context more succinctly.

Authors: We shortened that part, especially lines: 93-96, 142-160, 170-174, 206-220

• Strength: solid grounding in empowerment theory, social capital, and deinstitutionalization.

Authors: thank you

 

• Suggestion: integrate more comparative international literature upfront, not only in the final discussion.

Authors: we followed that comment and place the international comparison of approached to the circles of support implementation lines in the Conceptual framework section, lines 257-276

3. Methods

• Clear and consistent with the action research paradigm.

Authors: thank you.

• The case selection (Goleniow and Milanówek) is appropriate and well justified.

Authors: thank you.

• Suggest adding a brief explanation of how validity and reliability were ensured in qualitative observations or reflections.

Authors: information of how the valiability and reliability of results was ensured is added, lines: 294-299.

• The large-scale survey of SAC/SSC staff (n = 500) is a major strength and should be highlighted more prominently.

Authors: We add more info in this respect to highlight the meaning of the survey, lines 305-320

4. Results

• Structured into three levels (legal, financial, and staffing): excellent.

Authors: Thank you

• Tables and figures are informative; however, Diagram 1 and 2 could benefit from a clearer layout and English captions where applicable.

Authors: thank you. We improve diagram 1 and 2 to have clearer layout.

• In Section 3.2.2: more direct interpretation of cost differences and implications for scalability would enhance reader understanding.

Authors: more direct interpretation of the differences was added, line: 458-463

5. Discussion and Conclusion

• The final discussion is rich, but too long. Streamlining subsections (e.g., Sweden vs. Netherlands vs. Poland) would help.

Authors: the discussion was streamlined, as part of it was transferred to section 2, lines 564-578

• The international comparison is very useful—suggest moving it earlier or expanding it into a dedicated subsection.

Authors: This part was moved to section 2, lines: 257-276

• Limitation section is appropriate and honest—well done.

Authors: thank you.

• The contribution of “circles of support” to deinstitutionalization and personalization is well argued.

Authors: thank you.

6. Writing and Structure

• Overall well structured, but the language is often complex and includes long sentences.

Authors: we introduced changes to simplify the language and provide additional editing of the paper.

• The manuscript would greatly benefit from professional proofreading to improve fluency and clarity.

Authors: the manuscript underwent proofreading.

• Some paragraphs (e.g., 2.2, 3.2.2, 4) would benefit from clearer transitions and topic sentences.

Authors: we have corrected the transitions and topic sentences in the mentioned sections.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Despite the interesting topic raised by the authors, the reviewer is obliged to point out the weaknesses of this manuscript:

• missing exclusion criteria.

• no information on what statistic method was used to select and contact no more than
  20% (n=500) of the management staff of SAC and SSC directors or managers of the
  units, as well as deputy directors or managers, in Poland.
  Moreover, limited contact to only 20% (n=500) of the study population indicates
  that the study results may not be fully reliable.
• the discussion is short, it should be more detailed and supported by more scientific
  publications.
• it is unacceptable a lack of the data presented in this study.
  The manuscript is under review and the data should be available to reviewer without
  any request. The date should be provided as an appendix to the manuscript.
• the authors did not explain what new contribution this manuscript brings to
  the world of science.

   

 

Author Response

Authors: We would like to thank to the reviewer for  feedback and comments that helped us to improve the paper.

• missing exclusion criteria, no information on what statistic method was used to select and contact no more than 20% (n=500) of the management staff of SAC and SSC directors or managers of the units, as well as deputy directors or managers, in Poland. Moreover, limited contact to only 20% (n=500) of the study population indicates that the study results may not be fully reliable.

Authors: The selection SSC/SAC was random, thus the sample is random and representative, so the results can be generalised.  random sampling method was applied, with divisions into the following strata: provinces (1) and types of municipalities (2): rural municipality (a), urban-rural municipality (b), urban municipality (c), city with county rights (d). The sampling frame was the nationwide database of SAC/SSC which is publicly available.  That information was highlighted  to the methods section. Lines: 304-325.

• the discussion is short, it should be more detailed and supported by more scientific publications.

Authors: the discussion section was improved, some parts were streamline as a broader comments related to other publications was added. Lines: 551-621

• it is unacceptable a lack of the data presented in this study. The manuscript is under review and the data should be available to reviewer without any request. The date should be provided as an appendix to the manuscript.

Authors: the data is presented in the Supplementary Material that is added as an appendix to the paper.

• the authors did not explain what new contribution this manuscript brings to
  the world of science.

Authors: such paragraph was added in the discussion section. Lines: 543-551

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not adequately and comprehensively address the issues raised by the reviewer:

• no response to the phrase (quoted): "Moreover, limited contact to only 20% (n=500) of the study population indicates that the study results may not be fully reliable. "
•  data presented in the Supplementary Materials (added as an appendix ) to the article must be translated into English. Otherwise, the data are incomprehensible and cannot be verified.

Author Response

Thank you for comments. 

No response to the phrase (quoted): "Moreover, limited contact to only 20% (n=500) of the study population indicates that the study results may not be fully reliable. "Authors: Initially, the sample size was planned to ensure a sampling error of 5% in the statistical inference procedure, i.e., approximately 350 units. However, it was ultimately decided to increase the sample size to 500 units to make the results more robust. The methods used to analyze the data were significance tests for proportions and differences in proportions. The sample is random with appropriate sample size for inference statistics, we applied sampling procedure that implies a random sample. The results can be generalised to entire population. Lines 312-217. T

 

Data presented in the Supplementary Materials (added as an appendix ) to the article must be translated into English. Otherwise, the data are incomprehensible and cannot be verified.

Authors: English version of the data file was provided.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors responded to the reviewer's comments in a satisfactory manner.