Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A brief summary of the study

This study focuses on the role of school- principals in achieving educational inclusion. Specifically, it examines the relationship between the values, attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and practices of these educational agents regarding the education of students with disabilities. In addition, it seeks to identify which of these variables may be predictive factors of inclusive attitudes and practices of school-principals. Moreover, it proposes a theoretical model that explains the possible predictive relationships between the different variables. Overall, it is an interesting and highly significant study for the field of inclusive education.

Suggestions for authors

Keywords

1. My suggestion is to organize the keywords alphabetically.

2. I suggest adding the term 'attitudes' as a keyword.

References

The authors have carried out a comprehensive review of the literature, as many bibliographic references have been included. Specifically, 97 works have been cited. However, I suggest that they be a little more current since only 23 articles of those 97 are recent, that is, from the last 5 years. This means that less than 25% of the references are current. As a possible solution, I suggest adding some more recent bibliography or, conversely, reducing the number of bibliographic citations by assessing whether all of them are really necessary or perhaps some of the less current ones can be dispensed with.

Introduction and Theoretical Framework

1. On line 49, according to the journal's instructions, it should be [3-8] instead of [3,4,5,6,7,8].

2. I think that the first two sections of the article include very relevant information. However, my impression when I read both sections was a little disorganization of ideas and even some repetition of them. As an example:

- Lines 69-70 are repeated with lines 167-168.

- Lines 143-148 are repeated a bit with lines 186-188.

- The idea of "School-principals’ leadership is pivotal for inclusive education" is repeated in lines 119-120, 122-125, 161-164.

For this reason, I suggest reducing the Introduction a bit, so that it is a brief presentation of the study and its importance, but in a way that the ideas are not overly repeated with those of the next section. Additionally, I believe that the information in the Theoretical Framework section should be reorganized so that the same idea is not repeated at different paragraphs in the section. Perhaps creating sub-headings would help to organize the ideas.

3. I consider that the definition of 'values', 'attitudes', 'beliefs', 'knowledge', and 'practices' should be done much earlier, as when they are defined (line 165), there have been multiple references to these terms, and the fact that they are not well-defined from the beginning makes it difficult to understand the overall objective of the study.

4. On line 237, please include the acronym for HMRA, that is, "Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis", since it is the first time it is mentioned in the manuscript.

Methodology

1. I would change the order of the Methodology section, starting with Participants, then moving on to Instrument, Validation, and Procedure.

2. Furthermore, I believe it is essential to have a subheading on "Data Analysis" where the analyses performed and the software used are detailed. In fact, there is information in the Results section that I think should be moved to the Methodology section under this subheading of "Data Analysis" (e.g., lines 354-359, lines 442-450).

3. In line 293, I would change "people" to "school-principals".

4. In Table 1, I would not write "Level of Education" as it seems to refer to each participant's educational level. I would say "Educational stage" instead.

5. In Table 1, in the row "I.11. Type of impairment and/or Special Educational Needs of students," the initial letter of each diagnosis should be capitalized (just like it has been done for Intellectual disabilities, Physical disabilities, Visual impairments, and Hearing impairments).

Results

1. I suggest changing the title of Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5. The title of a table should be more descriptive to allow the reader to understand what information is being presented. What the dependent and independent variables are is information that is already provided in the first row of the table.

2. Additionally, in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, the note should be placed outside of the table, at the bottom of the table, not in the last row of it.

Regarding the Discussion and Conclusions sections, I have no suggestions. I believe the authors have done a great job overall.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are citing too many references that are over 10 years old. The authors are presenting students in this article from a deficit lens (disability and disabled). The historical context is necessary. However, the presentation should be current. I recommend using terms such as struggling, challenging, etc.).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx