Navigating Higher Education Challenges: A Review of Strategies among Students with Disabilities in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very relevant paper that is very significant for the present disability scholarship, in which the agency of students with disability themselves has become   very crucial.
The author has managed to use the Systematic Literature Review method well, including all the necessary stept involved in the kind of methodology. This is recommended.
The biggest issue that has discredited the paper is lack of conceptual/theoretical frame,  to use in the discussion section, for strong theoretical backing and a scholarly lense to tease  and unpack issues out. Without theoretical backing, and use of theoretical lens, in the discussion, the validity and credibility of  issues raised does not suit scholarly standard. Thus, though this was supposed to be a verg good paper, that it timely disability scholarship, lack of theoretical backing needs to be addressed before the paper can be accepted for publication. The work cannot be scientific without theoretical grounding.  
 
There are also a lot of contradictions in terms of the issue of national disability  policies in Indonesia, which at first the author presents as good to facilitate the inclusion of students  with disabilities in higher education but at the end conflicted ideas are presented.

The aim of the study and the research questions do not align well. The research question should also be around how students navigate strategies for their inclusion in higher education.

A lot of other issues of concern have been raised in the manuscript itself. The authors should consider addressing the issues  before the papercould be considered or accepted for publication.

Otherwise, this could have been a very good paper, relevant to make a contribution to the disability field.     

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed paper addresses a highly relevant topic, as the review of the scientific evidence on the inclusion of people with SwD in higher education in Indonesia is important for any country or state, especially if it has legislation that addresses and protects this group. 

The methodology section does not include the PRISMA matrix or if another type of information flow has been used, it would be advisable to include it.

In the results section, the author begins with a table, table 2, but it would be advisable to begin the section with an introductory text that leads to the information in the table. 

In the discussion section, the author should not start with a table, the reader needs an introductory text about the information that will appear in the table. This resource, the table, is complementary to the information, it should never be the main axis of the section. 

Although the authors propose limitations to the study, they do not propose new lines of research. 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and have made the necessary revisions to address the points raised. Please see the attachment a detailed summary of the changes made in response to your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript that the authors present is interesting and deals with an important issue of accessibility of students with disabilities to higher education. please find my comments on the manuscript:

Introduction - the authors mention an increase in the participation of PwD in higher education institutions, it would be good to add the report of percentages during recent years.

Please explain in the first time mentioned what is meant by SwD (students with disabilities?).

The authors refer in the literature reviewed items to population of students with disabilities such as deaf, blind, physical. Usualy a high rate of students with disabilities in higher education are students with learning disabilities and/or ADHD. It would be valuable to understand why the review omit this population, does the acadmeic works correspond with the rate of students with LD and/or ADHD in Indonesia? Is it a big category of students with disabilities. If so, it should be mentioned also in the study limitations.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our work. We have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and have made the necessary revisions to address the points raised. Please see attachment a detailed summary of the changes made in response to your feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is exciting to note that the author(s) has/have addressed all the issues that were raised in the previous version of the manuscript quite well.  Its now clear that the study it’s a scoping review, and contradictions and controversis on policy in Indonesia have been resolved. It is commendable.

This has significantly improved the study and as raised earlier,  it’s a good study that contributes significantly to the present scholarship, in which students with disabilities should be given opportunity to voice their concerned.
 
I am pleased with the issue of theorising which I had previously raised and  has now been addressed provided a scholarly grounded study, which is credible, can be confirmed and can be transferable to other studies with similar contexts.

Recognising the effort and justice  the author/s has/ have done  to the second version, I recommend that the paper can edited for language and be published.    

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author/s has/have  taken their time to address all the issues that were addressed in the previous version of the manuscript quite well. It is commendable.  

I am pleased with the issue of theorising which I had previously raised and  has now been addressed well, to provide a scholarly grounded study, which is credible, can be confirmed and can be transferable to other studies with similar contexts.

Recognising the effort and justice  the author/s has/ have done  to the second version, I recommend that the paper can edited for language and be published.