Empirical Evidence of AI-Enabled Accessibility in Digital Gastronomy: Development and Evaluation of the Receitas +Power Platform

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting attempt to combine AI based personalisation with accessibility oriented design in the context of digital gastronomy. The topic is very timely and interesting, however, there are a few concerns that need to be addressed. 

First, authors are suggested to tighten the introduction. The background is extensive, but at times it feels like a collection of statistics rather than a focused lead-in to the core research problem. Several long paragraphs could be synthesised, and the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of what is missing in current digital gastronomy or accessibility research. At the moment the reader understands that accessibility gaps exist, but the exact conceptual or empirical gap your work addresses is not sharply expressed.

Second, authors are suggested to clarify the logic behind the research design. While the exploratory case study approach is reasonable, the manuscript does not explain why this design is the most appropriate for answering your three research questions. The platform development and the user evaluation are presented almost as parallel processes. It would help if you made explicit how these two strands jointly constitute the research design and how each part contributes to answering the research questions.

Third, authors are suggested to refine the methods section so it reads less like a technical manual. The description of tools, frameworks and libraries is very detailed, but some methodological elements receive comparatively less attention. For example, the interaction process for participants with disabilities is not fully explained. Adding detail about how these users navigated the system, what assistive features they relied on and whether the platform introduced specific barriers would give the evaluation more depth.

Fourth, the presentation of the qualitative findings could be strengthened. Authors are suggested to move beyond listing themes and provide more interpretive commentary. Several insights are mentioned, but the thread that connects them to the research questions is sometimes thin. A clearer integration between the usability data, participants' comments and the stated aims would make the findings more analytically compelling.

Last, authors are suggested to recalibrate some of the claims made in the discussion and conclusion. A number of statements imply large-scale societal implications, yet the sample is small and context specific. Phrases that suggest broad societal transformation or far reaching impact appear premature for a case study. A more measured tone would give the conclusions greater credibility.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that you consider our work a relevant contribution. We have carefully reviewed the article and incorporated the necessary changes as suggested.

 

Q1 - First, authors are suggested to tighten the introduction. The background is extensive, but at times it feels like a collection of statistics rather than a focused lead-in to the core research problem. Several long paragraphs could be synthesised, and the introduction would benefit from a clearer articulation of what is missing in current digital gastronomy or accessibility research. At the moment the reader understands that accessibility gaps exist, but the exact conceptual or empirical gap your work addresses is not sharply expressed.

AQ1: The introduction has been restructured, with redundant paragraphs condensed, statistical listings removed, and the gaps identified in the literature on accessible digital gastronomy highlighted more directly. The final section of the introduction now presents the conceptual and empirical contributions of the study in an explicit manner.

 

Q2 - Second, authors are suggested to clarify the logic behind the research design. While the exploratory case study approach is reasonable, the manuscript does not explain why this design is the most appropriate for answering your three research questions. The platform development and the user evaluation are presented almost as parallel processes. It would help if you made explicit how these two strands jointly constitute the research design and how each part contributes to answering the research questions.

AQ2 - The Methodology section was revised to clarify the rationale of the research design, justify the exploratory case study approach, and explain the iterative integration of platform development and user evaluation. In addition, a clear mapping between each research question and the corresponding methodological procedures was introduced, demonstrating how accessibility integration, development, and evaluation jointly address the study objectives.

 

Q3 - Third, authors are suggested to refine the methods section so it reads less like a technical manual. The description of tools, frameworks and libraries is very detailed, but some methodological elements receive comparatively less attention. For example, the interaction process for participants with disabilities is not fully explained. Adding detail about how these users navigated the system, what assistive features they relied on and whether the platform introduced specific barriers would give the evaluation more depth.

AQ3 - Clarifications were added regarding the interaction process of participants with disabilities, including the tasks performed, the navigation strategies adopted, and the assistive functionalities used, as well as a brief analysis of any difficulties observed.

 

Q4 - Fourth, the presentation of the qualitative findings could be strengthened. Authors are suggested to move beyond listing themes and provide more interpretive commentary. Several insights are mentioned, but the thread that connects them to the research questions is sometimes thin. A clearer integration between the usability data, participants' comments and the stated aims would make the findings more analytically compelling.

AQ4 - The qualitative results section was revised to move beyond a simple enumeration of themes by strengthening the interpretative analysis. Participant comments are now more explicitly linked to the research questions and integrated with the quantitative usability findings.

 

Q5 - Last, authors are suggested to recalibrate some of the claims made in the discussion and conclusion. A number of statements imply large-scale societal implications, yet the sample is small and context specific. Phrases that suggest broad societal transformation or far reaching impact appear premature for a case study. A more measured tone would give the conclusions greater credibility.

AQ5 - The Discussion and Conclusions sections were revised to adopt a more cautious and context-aware formulation, consistent with the exploratory nature of the case study. Statements implying large-scale social implications were moderated, and the interpretation of results is now explicitly anchored in the empirical scope and sample characteristics of the study. This revision ensures closer alignment between the methodological limitations, the presented findings, and the stated conclusions.

 

Thank you for making this article much completer and more accurate. All the changes made are reflected in the attached article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study explores how artificial intelligence can promote accessibility and inclusiveness in digital culinary environments. The paper topic is highly significant. Based on the requirements for publication in this journal, the following suggestions are provided for reference:

1. In the sample recruitment section, please supplement the key points of the recruitment poster or text, and specify whether there is compensation or a screening questionnaire to assess self-selection bias.
2. In Section 4.4, you mentioned that “open-ended qualitative questions were included to capture user perceptions regarding accessibility, visual clarity, and interaction flow.” It is recommended to explicitly list which open-ended qualitative questions were included.
3. In the Discussion, strengthen the causal language and state the sample limitations and model constraints more explicitly.
4. Provide anonymized datasets or summary statistics as supplementary materials (e.g., raw SUS tables, thematic coding tables, WAVE reports, etc.).
5. Figures 4–7 are recommended to be annotated with the testing devices used.
6. The sample distribution indicates "The final sample (n = 87) included 9 participants self-identifying with functional limitations (visual, cognitive, or motor)." The number of participants with disabilities is too small and requires further explanation.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that you consider our work a relevant contribution. We have carefully reviewed the article and incorporated the necessary changes as suggested.

 

This study explores how artificial intelligence can promote accessibility and inclusiveness in digital culinary environments. The paper topic is highly significant. Based on the requirements for publication in this journal, the following suggestions are provided for reference:

1. In the sample recruitment section, please supplement the key points of the recruitment poster or text, and specify whether there is compensation or a screening questionnaire to assess self-selection bias.

A1 - The section on participant recruitment has been revised to include a concise description of the recruitment text, explicitly outlining the study objectives, participation requirements, duration, and informed consent procedures. We also clarified that participation was voluntary, no financial or material compensation was provided, and no pre-screening questionnaire was used. The implications of informed self-selection are now transparently acknowledged as a methodological limitation, in line with the exploratory nature of the study.

 

2. In Section 4.4, you mentioned that “open-ended qualitative questions were included to capture user perceptions regarding accessibility, visual clarity, and interaction flow.” It is recommended to explicitly list which open-ended qualitative questions were included.

A2 - Section 4.4 has been revised to explicitly list the open-ended qualitative questions included in the questionnaire. These questions are now clearly presented and linked to the subsequent thematic analysis, thereby improving methodological transparency and alignment between the data collection instruments and the qualitative results.

 

3. In the Discussion, strengthen the causal language and state the sample limitations and model constraints more explicitly.

A3 - The Discussion was revised to sharpen the causal language and to state more explicitly the limitations of the sample and the constraints of the model.

 

4. Provide anonymized datasets or summary statistics as supplementary materials (e.g., raw SUS tables, thematic coding tables, WAVE reports, etc.).

A4 - Considering the exploratory nature of the study, the self-reported character of the data, and the ethical constraints associated with the full anonymisation of qualitative responses, raw datasets were not made available as supplementary materials. Nevertheless, the data may be made available to the scientific community upon reasonable request to the authors.

 

5. Figures 4–7 are recommended to be annotated with the testing devices used.

A5 - Was addressed through a revision of the captions of Figures 4–7, explicitly indicating the devices, operating system, and browser used during testing (laptop computers running Windows 11 with Google Chrome).

 

6. The sample distribution indicates "The final sample (n = 87) included 9 participants self-identifying with functional limitations (visual, cognitive, or motor)." The number of participants with disabilities is too small and requires further explanation.

A6 - A clarifying sentence was added to Section 4.4 to justify that the limited number of participants with disabilities reflects the exploratory design and voluntary, non-stratified recruitment, aiming to ensure functional diversity rather than statistical representativeness.

 

Thank you for making this article much completer and more accurate. All the changes made are reflected in the attached article.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is necessary to clearly present the factors used in the paper, and if you intend to validate the measurement items, you should also provide the factor loadings and detailed information on each measurement item.
If you conducted a correlation analysis, you need to present the relationships among all variables used in the study.
It is unclear whether the statistical analyses conducted are appropriate for achieving the research objectives. The explanation is insufficient regarding which variables were used to answer Research Questions 1, 2, and 3, and whether the corresponding statistical techniques were appropriate.
In the theoretical background section, it seems necessary to discuss accessibility, personalization, or recommendation systems used in food-related platforms in greater depth.
Regarding the research data, please clarify in what ways the data are appropriate for achieving the research objectives.
For tables that include abbreviations, please provide explanatory notes using footnotes.
In the conclusion, please highlight the theoretical implications of the paper and clearly articulate how the study contributes to the consumer-related literature.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript. We are pleased that you consider our work a relevant contribution. We have carefully reviewed the article and incorporated the necessary changes as suggested.

 

Q1 - It is necessary to clearly present the factors used in the paper, and if you intend to validate the measurement items, you should also provide the factor loadings and detailed information on each measurement item.

AQ1 - The manuscript now explicitly identifies the analytical dimensions considered in the study (Personalisation, Accessibility, and Inclusion); item-level factor validation and factor loadings were not performed, as a standardised and previously validated instrument was used.

Q2 - If you conducted a correlation analysis, you need to present the relationships among all variables used in the study.

AQ2 – All bivariate relationships between the analytical dimensions considered in the study were analysed using Pearson correlations and are now explicitly reported in the Results section.

Q3 - It is unclear whether the statistical analyses conducted are appropriate for achieving the research objectives. The explanation is insufficient regarding which variables were used to answer Research Questions 1, 2, and 3, and whether the corresponding statistical techniques were appropriate.

AQ3 - The methodological section was revised to explicitly clarify the correspondence between the Research Questions (Q1–Q3), the variables analysed, and the statistical techniques employed. In particular, the analytical dimensions associated with each research question were specified, as well as the justification for the suitability of the reliability and correlation analyses given the exploratory nature of the study.

 

Q4 - In the theoretical background section, it seems necessary to discuss accessibility, personalization, or recommendation systems used in food-related platforms in greater depth.

AQ4 - The theoretical background section was revised and expanded to include a more systematic discussion of digital accessibility, personalisation, and food-related recommender systems. Recent normative and AI-based studies were incorporated to clarify existing gaps between these dimensions and to strengthen the conceptual grounding and scientific relevance of the study.

 

Q5 - Regarding the research data, please clarify in what ways the data are appropriate for achieving the research objectives.

AQ5 - The manuscript was revised to explicitly clarify the adequacy of the research data in relation to the study objectives. A paragraph was added to the Research Design section explaining how the quantitative data (SUS scores, reliability, and correlation analyses) and the qualitative feedback are directly aligned with the research questions and jointly support the evaluation of usability, accessibility, and user empowerment.

 

Q6 - For tables that include abbreviations, please provide explanatory notes using footnotes.

AQ6 - The suggested changes have been implemented.

 

Q7 - In the conclusion, please highlight the theoretical implications of the paper and clearly articulate how the study contributes to the consumer-related literature.

AQ7 - The Conclusions section was revised to explicitly highlight the theoretical implications and to clarify the study’s contribution to the consumer literature, with emphasis on consumer empowerment and inclusive AI-enabled digital experiences.

 

Thank you for making this article much completer and more accurate. All the changes made are reflected in the attached article.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further suggestions. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revision is done well.