Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research work has a very good value of conceptual consistency, a very good research design and clarity of the objectives. The research is interesting with an original topic and the conclusions answer the research questions. The conclusions supported by the content. The references are comprehensive.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and made substantial revisions to improve clarity, methodological detail, and alignment between objectives, research questions, and conclusions. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response.

REVIEWER 1

Comment: Positive assessment (conceptual consistency, research design, clarity of objectives, originality, conclusions aligned with research questions, comprehensive references).
Response: We thank the reviewer for their positive evaluation. No changes were required here beyond the overall revisions made to address other reviewers’ suggestions.

Additional improvement not explicitly requested but aligned with reviewer concerns:
Section 5.4 (“Resources: Insufficiency and Ineffectiveness of the Allocation Model”) was revised to incorporate comparative evidence from other contexts (Finland, New Zealand) and to strengthen the link between the empirical findings and the recommendations for Madeira.

We believe these changes have substantially strengthened the manuscript and addressed all points raised.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although there is nothing particularly novel or surprising about the results, I really appreciate the contribution to the monitoring of inclusive education practices in European countries. I recommend improving the structure of the article, especially the first part, so that the research questions and objectives are presented more clearly. The methods and techniques used should also be described in more detail (e.g. what type of documentary analysis was applied and how).
The multidisciplinary teams created to support inclusive education in Portugal are presented as an example of good practice, so I would expect to find information about this model and similar inspirational examples of good practice in the introduction (or in the literature review, given that many books provide practical descriptions of inclusive educational strategies).
In the Discussion section (and Conclusions, too), I read some information and paragraphs that were presented almost exactly the same way in the Introduction or subsequent sections. It doesn't seem necessary to repeat the same sentences several times.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and made substantial revisions to improve clarity, methodological detail, and alignment between objectives, research questions, and conclusions. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response.

REVIEWER 2

Comment 1: Improve structure, especially first part, with clearer research questions and objectives.
Response: We restructured the Introduction so that research questions and objectives are now explicitly presented and clearly linked.

Comment 2: Describe methods in more detail, including the type of documentary analysis.
Response: The Methods section now specifies that the documentary analysis followed Bardin’s (1995) qualitative content analysis method, using thematic categorisation and comparative examination of legislative texts, official guidelines, and OECD reports.

Comment 3: Provide more information on EMAEI model and similar examples in the Introduction or Literature Review.

Response: The Literature Review now includes expanded information on EMAEI and examples of multidisciplinary teams from Italy and Spain, supported by recent literature.

Comment 4: Remove unnecessary repetition in Discussion and Conclusions.
Response: Repetitions of sentences from the Introduction were removed or rephrased in the Discussion and the Conclusion.

Additional improvement not explicitly requested but aligned with reviewer concerns:
Section 5.4 (“Resources: Insufficiency and Ineffectiveness of the Allocation Model”) was revised to incorporate comparative evidence from other contexts (Finland, New Zealand) and to strengthen the link between the empirical findings and the recommendations for Madeira.

We believe these changes have substantially strengthened the manuscript and addressed all points raised.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have very mixed feelings about this submission. I will start with the positive and then discuss areas where some improvement is required. I wish to make it clear that the topic is interesting and the study worthy of attention. Ultimately, this article deserves to be published. But some adjustments and improvements should be made. This, at least, is my opinion.

(+++) The strong points: the general tone, the overall written fluency and stylistic precision  – the educational challenges and overarching societal interest of inclusive education in Portugal (and elsewhere) –  the presentation of the European and Portuguese legal frameworks for the implementation of inclusive education on the mainland and in the Autonomous Region of Madeira –  the historical and institutional context (Knowledge of the context is methodologically pertinent and intellectually nourishing for all readers – the emphasis clearly placed on "perceptions" :  the authors make it clear that this is not an observational study (of what actually happens on the ground) but an assessment of what "frontline professionals" acting as EMAEI coordinators have witnessed, sensed and recorded in their own practice.

(?) Program coordinators are in effect go-betweens: they are a living link between the prescriptions of "official discourse",  the grandiloquence of "stated priorities" and the starker realities of school life. Although due attention is paid to the coordinators' initial training and experience,  how far can they be trusted to appraise the lived realities of fellow teachers and their students? Are they under pressure to perform and succeed? How open and sincere can they be? Maybe this is not relevant to the study but in the absence of focus-groups, face-to-face interviews etc. it is hard to access their own personal lived experience, in all its intellectual and phenomenological complexity.

(-) The beginning of the article should contain more explicit (research) questions – the piece reads more like a survey than an actual research article, with a collection of set questions and lists of set answers, leaving no room for personal expression, and giving no insight into personal testimonies based on concrete situations, incidents, etc. By the way, how large was the sample? How were the percentages worked out? Also, the reader is left rather in the vague as to the actual number, level, and size of the schools. Finally, the final "recommendations" are fare too many and not explicitly related to the outcomes.

I would advise the authors to improve on some of these points. Maybe they could carry out additional semi-guided interviews with at least some of their informants? And possibly compare what coordinators feel with the "perception" of ordinary teachers (who might be less enthusiastic or motivated) actually experience? This is a mere suggestion that the authors might simply want to discard. 

 

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and made substantial revisions to improve clarity, methodological detail, and alignment between objectives, research questions, and conclusions. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response.

REVIEWER 3

Comment 1: Clarify sample size, percentages, and school characteristics.
Response: The Methods section has been expanded to provide full details of the sample and the calculation of percentages. This addition clarifies the representativeness of the sample, contextualises the school profiles, and specifies the calculation method used for all percentages in the study.

Comment 2: Consider limitations in coordinators’ perspectives.

Response: Added a paragraph in Discussion (5.1) acknowledging that EMAEI coordinators act as mediators and may face institutional pressures, which can influence reporting, and that the absence of triangulation with teachers’ perspectives is a limitation.

Comment 3: Final recommendations too numerous and not linked to outcomes.
Response: Recommendations were streamlined, integrated into a narrative Conclusion, and explicitly connected to the findings reported in Sections 5.1 to 5.4.

Additional improvement not explicitly requested but aligned with reviewer concerns:
Section 5.4 (“Resources: Insufficiency and Ineffectiveness of the Allocation Model”) was revised to incorporate comparative evidence from other contexts (Finland, New Zealand) and to strengthen the link between the empirical findings and the recommendations for Madeira.

We believe these changes have substantially strengthened the manuscript and addressed all points raised.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract: The abstract should begin with a few introductory sentences, not directly with the law. The abstract should further elaborate on the methodology. The study's sample should also be mentioned.

Keywords: Keywords from the Autonomous Region of Madeira can also be included.

Introduction: The "Introduction" section of the study should be enriched with current sources (from the last 5 years). Additionally, after the Introduction, a "literature review" section should be added, providing a list of current relevant literature.

Page 2, line 88: A general paragraph regarding the purpose should be written under the heading "The specific objectives of the study are as follows." These items should then be translated into research questions, clearly stating the answers sought.

Discussion: Sources from the last 5-6 years should be included alongside the sources in this section.

Conclusion: The conclusion section should not be itemized. Each section should be divided into paragraphs.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time and expertise dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered all comments and made substantial revisions to improve clarity, methodological detail, and alignment between objectives, research questions, and conclusions. All changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript. Below is our point-by-point response.

REVIEWER 4

Comment 1: Abstract should begin with introductory sentences, include methodology and sample.

Response: Abstract now begins with a brief contextual introduction, followed by methods (including sample size and method type) before stating main findings and conclusions.

Comment 2: Include keywords related to the Autonomous Region of Madeira.
Response: Added “Autonomous Region of Madeira” to keywords list.

Comment 3: Enrich Introduction with current sources (last 5 years) and add Literature Review section.

Response: Added recent references (2019-2024) and created a separate Section 2 “Literature Review” as requested.

Comment 4: Under “specific objectives” add a general paragraph and translate into research questions.

Response: Rewrote the section so that objectives are introduced by a general paragraph and are explicitly linked to the three research questions.

Comment 5: Add recent sources in Discussion.

Response: Inserted references from 2019-2024 throughout Discussion.

Comment 6: Conclusion should not be itemised but written in paragraphs.
Response: Conclusion was reformatted into a narrative synthesis without bullet points, aligning recommendations with the study’s findings.

Additional improvement not explicitly requested but aligned with reviewer concerns:
Section 5.4 (“Resources: Insufficiency and Ineffectiveness of the Allocation Model”) was revised to incorporate comparative evidence from other contexts (Finland, New Zealand) and to strengthen the link between the empirical findings and the recommendations for Madeira.

We believe these changes have substantially strengthened the manuscript and addressed all points raised.

Kind regards,

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The key changes required have been carried out.  I no longer have serious reservations and am happy to give the go-ahead for publication. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are grateful for your constructive comments throughout the review process, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity and quality of our manuscript.

Sincerely,
The Authors