The Interface Between Inclusion and Creativity: A Qualitative Scoping Systematic Review of Practices Developed in High School

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents an important topic which is relevant today particularly in these challenging times.  However,  the paper requires substantial revision in which the relationships between inclusion, creativity, human rights, and curriculum studies need to be more explication.  The research questions were brought up and seemingly abandoned.  The figures don't really tell a data story.  Furthermore,  I lost sight of how the creative pedagogical strategies were developed for those who are marginalized, or disabled. 

I think with massive reorganization, and careful explication of the salient points in the paper,  it could be re-submitted for consideration. 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The attached document contains the responses and comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This systematic review addresses a highly relevant and timely topic—the intersection between inclusive education and creativity in high school settings. The selection of a scoping review methodology is appropriate given the exploratory nature of the research, and the international scope of the articles reviewed enriches the discussion. However, several aspects require clarification or improvement to enhance the scientific rigor and transparency of the manuscript:

1. Article selection and transparency:
   The description of the article selection process, although supported by PRISMA and the use of Rayyan software, would benefit from more precision. It is not clear which 25 articles were finally selected (full references are dispersed or incomplete in Table 1), and there is no indication of whether a supplementary material with full bibliographic data or detailed justification for exclusions (particularly the 51 rejected after full-text review) is available. Including this as an appendix or online supplement would improve reproducibility.

2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria:
   The criteria are broadly described, but some categories—such as what constitutes a “different topic” or “non-relevant context”—could benefit from specific examples. The exclusion of review articles, for instance, is reasonable, but the rationale should be more explicitly justified in relation to the scoping review’s goals.

3. Definition and use of key concepts:
   The term creativity is inconsistently defined across the reviewed articles, and the manuscript acknowledges this. However, the review does not offer a unifying conceptual framework or model to bridge this variation. A clearer theoretical synthesis would increase coherence and strengthen the contribution.

4. Integration of results and discussion:
   There is a tendency to conflate descriptive reporting with interpretive analysis. Structuring the discussion more clearly around the three research questions—with explicit cross-referencing to the data—would increase argumentative strength.

5. Language and clarity:
   The English is mostly intelligible but would benefit from a professional language edit. There are occasional grammar and syntax issues, as well as repetitive phrasing, that reduce the fluency and clarity of expression.

6. Contribution to the field:
   While the manuscript covers a broad range of international practices, it could be more impactful by identifying gaps in the literature or offering more robust recommendations for practice and policy based on the evidence reviewed.

7. Use of supplementary tools:
   The use of VOSviewer is appropriate and visually informative, but the interpretation of term co-occurrence maps and density visuals could be better explained for readers unfamiliar with bibliometric analysis. A brief explanation of the software’s thresholds and clustering methods would be useful.

In sum, the manuscript presents a valuable review of inclusive and creative pedagogical practices in high school contexts. With improvements in transparency, conceptual cohesion, and editorial polish, it could make a meaningful contribution to the literature on inclusive education and innovation in pedagogy.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the manuscript is generally understandable, there are numerous grammatical inaccuracies, awkward sentence constructions, and occasional misuse of terminology that impact clarity and readability. The text would benefit from professional English language editing to ensure fluency, consistency in tone, and precision in academic expression.

Author Response

The attached document contains the responses and comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your careful and thorough response to the first round of peer review. I appreciate the considerable effort that has gone into improving the manuscript. The revised version presents notable advancements in terms of structure, methodological transparency, and academic writing. Below are my detailed comments and suggestions:

 

1. Methodological Clarity and Transparency

Your clarifications regarding the selection of the final 25 articles and the justification for exclusions are commendable. The inclusion of a detailed supplementary file with the 51 excluded articles, along with specific reasons for each, significantly enhances the transparency and replicability of your scoping review. This is a key strength of the revised manuscript.

The use of tools such as Rayyan and VOSviewer is also well documented, and your expanded explanation of clustering thresholds and co-occurrence analysis provides helpful context for readers unfamiliar with bibliometric software.

 

2. Structure and Alignment with Research Questions

The manuscript now demonstrates a much clearer alignment between the discussion and the three research questions. The reorganization of Section 4 into clearly labeled sub-sections improves the coherence and accessibility of your analysis. The PRISMA diagram and summary tables are clear, well-labeled, and informative.

However, please note that Figure 1 appears blurred and pixelated in the current version. I recommend uploading a higher-resolution version to ensure visual clarity and readability.

 

3. Conceptual Framing of Creativity and Inclusion

While the introduction now includes broader and more critical references to creativity (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, Freire, Morin), there is still room to strengthen this component. Specifically, the manuscript would benefit from the development of a synthesized or integrative conceptual model that can serve as a lens for interpreting the diversity of definitions and practices found across the included studies. As it stands, creativity remains treated in somewhat fragmented ways, which may limit the conceptual depth of your analysis.

 

4. Engagement with Literature and Implications

Your engagement with relevant and recent literature has improved, and the referencing is appropriate throughout. However, the implications section could still be expanded. While you touch on educational practice and offer suggestions, the recommendations remain somewhat general. I encourage you to offer clearer, more actionable proposals for practitioners, educators, or policymakers, based on the trends identified in your scoping review.

 

5. Language and Style

The English language quality has improved substantially, and it is now clear, professional, and consistent throughout the manuscript. I understand that the text was reviewed by a professional editing service, and the result is evident. No further revisions to the language are necessary.

I now recommend acceptance with minor revisions. The article offers a meaningful and methodologically sound contribution to the intersection of inclusion and creativity in secondary education, though a few theoretical and practical aspects could still be refined to strengthen its scholarly impact.

Congratulations on the substantial improvements, and I hope these final suggestions assist in further enhancing your work.

Sincerely,

Reviewer 2

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time and constructive suggestions to improve our manuscript. Please find attached the document recording the revisions made in response to your comments, for your review. We remain available for any further clarifications.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf