Getting Global with It: The Rapid Growth in Higher Education and Disability-Focused Professional Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a significant topic by conducting a systematic review of global higher education and disability literature. The review critically examines the current state of research, guided by four key research questions, focusing on represented countries, research methodologies, investigated topics, and studied samples. The study follows the PRISMA guidelines, ensuring methodological rigor. This structured approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the field and its challenges. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and offers valuable insights that contribute to the academic discourse on higher education and disability.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Responses

 

No revisions requested

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your article on disability-focused literature in higher education. The article does a nice job of summarizing global efforts related to the education of individuals with disabilities and connecting the information to postsecondary education.

While the first part of your title is “catchy” and makes it clear the article focuses on something worldwide, I am unsure if readers who are unfamiliar with the Association on Higher Education and Disability or the field of higher education and disability will understand the second part of your title. This may not be of concern depending on your intended audience.

I am a bit confused by your first research question. It would be helpful if questions one and three were written a bit more clearly to indicate exactly what you were searching for in your literature review. 

I am curious as to why more disability categories were not included in your search, such as autism or autism spectrum disorders, specific learning disability, etc. You mention learning disability and autism spectrum disorders in the Implications section of your paper; however, it does not appear that you utilized the terms in your search. While I realize different countries may utilize different descriptors when referring to documented disabilities, it seems that some terms are well known across several countries, especially autism or autism spectrum disorders.  It seems that the lack of certain terms in your search could have impacted the number of articles included in your review and your conclusions on “visible” vs. “hidden” disabilities.

In your methodology, you mentioned the inclusion of peer-reviewed journals in your search, but in the Limitations section you mentioned that dissertation abstracts were also included. While I realize your Methods section directs the reader to your full systematic literature review for more information, it seems that additional information on your methodology in this particular article would be helpful to the reader. For example, more information would be helpful regarding how you divided articles into the four domains of students, accessibility service staff, faculty, and non-accessibility service staff. I am unclear on the factors you utilized to determine how to sort the articles into these particular domains. 

The terms “visible” and “hidden” disabilities are mentioned several times, beginning on page 6; however, the terms are not defined until page 8 in the Discussion section. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Responses

 

I am a bit confused by your first research question. It would be helpful if questions one and three were written a bit more clearly to indicate exactly what you were searching for in your literature review. 

Thank you for highlighting the need to add clarity to the questions. The two questions have been revised on page 7 of the manuscript.

Question one revised: What countries are represented in the English-language international professional literature focused on higher education and disability, and how many countries are included?

Question three revised: What types of samples have been studied in the English-language international professional literature on higher education and disability, and how do they vary across the represented countries?

I am curious as to why more disability categories were not included in your search, such as autism or autism spectrum disorders, specific learning disability, etc. You mention learning disability and autism spectrum disorders in the Implications section of your paper; however, it does not appear that you utilized the terms in your search. While I realize different countries may utilize different descriptors when referring to documented disabilities, it seems that some terms are well known across several countries, especially autism or autism spectrum disorders.  It seems that the lack of certain terms in your search could have impacted the number of articles included in your review and your conclusions on “visible” vs. “hidden” disabilities.

We acknowledge that the search string did not explicitly include terms such as "autism," "autism spectrum disorder," or "specific learning disability." Our approach aimed to construct a broad and inclusive search string that captured a wide range of disability-related research within higher education contexts. To achieve this, we relied on umbrella terms like "disabilit*" and specific descriptors of common disability categories (e.g., "dyslexia," "mental illness," "mobility impairment") to maximize sensitivity and breadth across databases.

While our search terms may not have explicitly included "autism" or "specific learning disability," we recognize their importance in the field of higher education and disability research. To address this potential limitation, we supplemented our database search with a targeted hand search of the Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability (JPED) and other relevant sources. This process allowed us to include articles that might not have been captured by our original search string, thereby enhancing the comprehensiveness of our dataset.

Moving forward, we recognize the importance of including terms like "autism," "autism spectrum disorder," and "specific learning disability" explicitly in future search strategies to ensure even more comprehensive coverage. We appreciate this constructive suggestion and will integrate it into our methodology in subsequent research.

It is important to note, however, that while we did not include these specific terms in the search, we did code for those terms when all articles were reviewed by the study team. Ultimately, publications were collapsed into the categories “visible” and “hidden.”

The definitions have been added in the manuscript on page 12 upon first use: “Visual disabilities are those that may be readily observable given their distinct characteristics (e.g., deafness) or due to an assistive device (e.g., wheelchair) which hidden disabilities are not immediately observable (e.g., cognitive, learning, or mental health conditions) (Olney & Brockelman, 2003; Shaw et al., 2009).”

In your methodology, you mentioned the inclusion of peer-reviewed journals in your search, but in the Limitations section you mentioned that dissertation abstracts were also included. While I realize your Methods section directs the reader to your full systematic literature review for more information, it seems that additional information on your methodology in this particular article would be helpful to the reader. For example, more information would be helpful regarding how you divided articles into the four domains of students, accessibility service staff, faculty, and non-accessibility service staff. I am unclear on the factors you utilized to determine how to sort the articles into these particular domains.

The limitations section has been revised and no longer reflects remarks about dissertation abstracts. These abstracts were not part of the literature reviewed.

The following has been added to the revised manuscript on page 9:

The Postsecondary Access and Student Success (PASS) taxonomy developed by Dukes et al. (2017), updated in 2022, provides a structured framework for categorizing research on higher education and disability across four domains. The Student-Focused Support domain addresses areas such as self-determination skills, career development, and students' use of accommodations. The Program- and Institutional-Focused Support domain examines aspects like program development, institutional policies, and evaluations of disability services. The Faculty-Focused Support domain explores faculty knowledge and attitudes toward disability, as well as professional development initiatives for faculty. Lastly, the Non-Accessibility Services Staff Support domain includes staff knowledge and attitudes toward disability, as well as professional development initiatives for staff. By organizing research into these domains and subdomains, the PASS taxonomy facilitates a systematic analysis of global practices and policies, highlighting areas for improvement and innovation in supporting students with disabilities.

The terms “visible” and “hidden” disabilities are mentioned several times, beginning on page 6; however, the terms are not defined until page 8 in the Discussion section.

The definitions of the terms “visible” and “hidden” disabilities has been moved up in the manuscript and now are reflected in their first use.

The definitions have been added in the manuscript on page 12 upon first use: “Visual disabilities are those that may be readily observable given their distinct characteristics (e.g., deafness) or due to an assistive device (e.g., wheelchair) which hidden disabilities are not immediately observable (e.g., cognitive, learning, or mental health conditions) (Olney & Brockelman, 2003; Shaw et al., 2009).”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work addressed is interesting and I consider it necessary to carry it out. However, it has significant weaknesses that make the article unacceptable in its current format.

I shall now explain the reasons for this comment:

1. Section 1.2 of the theoretical framework does not contribute anything. It indicates the production and country where this topic of study has proliferated the most, but does not indicate what about, how it has improved the current picture, what the studies contribute, etc.

2. The same is true of section 1.3, whose title indicates ‘Justification of the systematic review! and only one paper is cited.

3. The results section is really scarce and short. It only provides percentages. It does not offer any other view. 

4. There are no data or appendices indicating which studies were analysed. It would be interesting to analyse the objectives of these studies as well as the results identified. To do so, it would be necessary to reduce the sample or enlarge the working team, but the results obtained could contribute more knowledge to the academic and scientific field.

Despite being an interesting study, the results are poor. It only deals with the percentage of representation of some data, but does not report any content that would help to improve current educational practices.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Nothing.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Responses

1. Section 1.2 of the theoretical framework does not contribute anything. It indicates the production and country where this topic of study has proliferated the most, but does not indicate what about, how it has improved the current picture, what the studies contribute, etc.

We appreciate your suggestion however it is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. We intend to publish additional articles that will describe discreet aspects of the literature included in the review (e.g., students with physical disabilities, students with autism, etc.). Each of these discreet manuscripts will be in the 30-page range, thus, highlighting the challenge in addressing the array of results that may be culled from such an expansive data set.

2. The same is true of section 1.3, whose title indicates ‘Justification of the systematic review! and only one paper is cited.

The section has been revised and includes additional references on pages 6 and 7 of the revised manuscript.

3. The results section is really scarce and short. It only provides percentages. It does not offer any other view. 

The Results section is spread across the initial Results paragraph and also includes the sections titled “Research Methods”, “Disabilities Represented”, and “Article Topic.” See pages 12 to 15 of the revised manuscript.

4. There are no data or appendices indicating which studies were analysed. It would be interesting to analyse the objectives of these studies as well as the results identified. To do so, it would be necessary to reduce the sample or enlarge the working team, but the results obtained could contribute more knowledge to the academic and scientific field.

We appreciate your suggestion however it is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. We intend to publish additional articles that will describe discreet aspects of the literature included in the review (e.g., students with physical disabilities, students with autism, etc.). Each of these discreet manuscripts will be in the 30-page range, thus, highlighting the challenge in addressing the array of results that may be culled from such an expansive data set.

Despite being an interesting study, the results are poor. It only deals with the percentage of representation of some data, but does not report any content that would help to improve current educational practices.

We feel confident the findings do, in fact, draw conclusions and makes recommendations to improve the work of the field. Please consider the following summaries as evidence:

The discussion section of the article emphasizes the global expansion of higher education and disability research over the past decade, noting the proliferation of studies across 77 countries. Despite this growth, North America and Europe dominate the field, reflecting a strong influence from long-standing disability rights legislation. The literature heavily leans toward non-intervention research, with over 90% of international studies lacking experimental designs. This trend suggests that while descriptive studies are essential, the field has yet to shift significantly toward developing and testing interventions to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Another key observation is the underrepresentation of hidden disabilities in international samples compared to those in the United States, raising concerns about global equity in research focus and service delivery. The prevalence of student-centered studies aligns with efforts to prioritize student outcomes, but gaps remain in addressing faculty, staff, and systemic perspectives.

The implications section calls for targeted actions to address these gaps. For accessibility services staff, it suggests fostering international collaborations to share best practices, advocate for more staff-focused research, and develop evidence-based interventions to serve students with diverse disabilities effectively. Scholars are encouraged to increase geographic diversity in research, prioritize intervention-based studies, and investigate the unique needs of students with hidden disabilities. The article also highlights the importance of longitudinal research to evaluate the long-term impact of disability services and the role of policies like the CRPD in shaping inclusive practices globally. The findings underscore the need for comprehensive, regionally diverse research to build a robust evidence base for advancing accessibility and equity in higher education.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors on completing a review of this magnitude. It is clear that a great deal of time, effort, and teamwork went into this project.  This manuscript adds value to the field, however, it could be improved. This is a very rich data set--and as such, I think the findings could go into more depth. I would like to see an argument in this paper beyond the topics and countries represented--I want to see more about what the findings of the literature are saying. The value of this work and its effect on students with disabilities in higher education is currently understated in the manuscript. I also wanted more descriptions about what the topic "faculty focused" or "student-level" meant. Finally, if the authors could go into more depth, I think an additional figure that helps the readers visualize the data would be great. Much like the map, something like a scatter plot chart or a type of bar graph that would allow a reader to interpret the topics by country would be a nice addition.  Overall, with such a wealth of data, there could be more richness in the findings. 

Author Response

Reviewer 4 Responses

 

I commend the authors on completing a review of this magnitude. It is clear that a great deal of time, effort, and teamwork went into this project.  This manuscript adds value to the field, however, it could be improved. This is a very rich data set--and as such, I think the findings could go into more depth. I would like to see an argument in this paper beyond the topics and countries represented--I want to see more about what the findings of the literature are saying. The value of this work and its effect on students with disabilities in higher education is currently understated in the manuscript. I also wanted more descriptions about what the topic "faculty focused" or "student-level" meant. Finally, if the authors could go into more depth, I think an additional figure that helps the readers visualize the data would be great. Much like the map, something like a scatter plot chart or a type of bar graph that would allow a reader to interpret the topics by country would be a nice addition. Overall, with such a wealth of data, there could be more richness in the findings. 

 

We appreciate your suggestion however it is beyond the scope of the current manuscript. We intend to publish additional articles that will describe discreet aspects of the literature included in the review (e.g., students with physical disabilities, students with autism, etc.). Each of these discreet manuscripts will be in the 30-page range, thus, highlighting the challenge in addressing the array of results that may be culled from such an expansive data set.

An additional figure is a great suggestion! A bar graph (noted as Figure 3) reflecting topics by country has been added on page 34 of the revised manuscript and is noted on page 14 of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing my comments.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. We have responded to the requested edits in this version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is interesting, and as far as the theoretical framework and methodology are concerned, it is correct. However, the results section is very weak. I understand that a more in-depth analysis is planned for future studies, but this study should also include a compelling results section.

With regard to the discussion section, it does include the data mentioned above; however, I believe it is misplaced. Additionally, the discussion section cannot be considered a discussion when there is no actual debate or comparison. There is no contrast with previously analysed studies.

I believe that, for this manuscript to be approved, these two issues must be addressed.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. We have responded to the requested edits point-to-point in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the edits to the manuscript. I do believe they have strengthened the papers. I would still like to see one edit regarding the figure. In the version of the manuscript I saw, I did not see a reference or narrative explanation of the new figure in the body of the paper. Without reference or a brief narrative of the figure, it cannot be interpreted, as there is no explanation of what each Domain on the X-axis is referring to. 

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised manuscript. We have responded to the requested edits in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I consider that the text is in line with the suggestions made.