Disability-Friendly Hospitality Services as a Catalyst for Empowering Inclusive Tourism in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting topic, however, the artcile has some gaps.

What is the research question of the study, what are the research hypotheses ?

How many disabled tourists are currently calculated in Indonesia?

How many disabled tourists visit the hotels which were surveyed?

How many hotels are operating in the selected region of Indonesia, and is the choice of 20 hotels meeting the representativeness?

Also, why not asking disabled tourists about their experience in hotels? if you need to reveal problems they face, better apply interviews among these people, to see what needs they have, what obstacles they encounter while travelling and staying at hotels.

Add limitations of the study and future research considerations.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In general, this is a well-structured paper that addresses an important but under-researched area within tourism studies, particularly in the Global South. However, there are several aspects that could be improved before its publication. Please refer to my detailed comments below:

 

1. The conceptual framework, which draws upon the SERVQUAL model and the Stonesifer & Kim framework, should be refined to better reflect the local context in Indonesia. The linkage between the theoretical framework and the qualitative research needs to be more established.

 

2. From a methodological perspective, the explanation of how the data were coded and analysed requires more detail.

 

3. In the discussion section, the paper outlines relevant legislation in Indonesia. It needs to incorporate a more engagement with the policy-practice gap, particularly regarding the gaps between legal provisions and their implementation.

 

4. The findings should be used to construct an explanatory model grounded in the conceptual framework. The connection between the findings and the framework is weak in its present form.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses an increasingly relevant and under-researched area in sustainable tourism studies: the role of hospitality services in promoting accessibility and inclusion for travelers with disabilities in Indonesia. The authors’ focus on service providers, rather than tourists themselves, provides a valuable shift in perspective that contributes meaningfully to the discourse on inclusive tourism.

The integration of two frameworks—SERVQUAL and Stonesifer and Kim’s six-component model—adds analytical depth. The comparison between theory and practice is well-executed, enabling a critical assessment of where and why gaps persist.

The discussion, although comprehensive, often reiterates findings without deep theoretical engagement. A more critical reflection on systemic barriers—such as ableism, socio-cultural attitudes, or economic neoliberalism—would strengthen the analytical dimension.

The conclusion is clear and ties the argument together well, but it could more explicitly link the findings back to the theoretical frameworks and offer a concise roadmap for future research (e.g., longitudinal studies, guest experiences, policy enforcement metrics).

With revisions focused on language clarity, theoretical depth, and critical reflection, this article has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the literature on inclusive and sustainable tourism. It is recommended for publication pending minor to moderate revisions.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While generally readable, the manuscript would benefit from careful language editing. Several grammatical errors, awkward phrasings, and typographical inconsistencies detract from the professionalism of the text. Academic clarity would be enhanced by streamlining redundancies and improving transitions between sections.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. Thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is better. The author responses are logical.

The artcile may be published!