Assessing the Readiness of Government and Semi-Government Institutions in Qatar for Inclusive and Sustainable ICT Accessibility: Introducing the MARSAD Tool
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
I am glad I had the opportunity to read and evaluate the article. The topic you covered is relevant. The article is mostly very well written.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: I am glad I had the opportunity to read and evaluate the article. The topic you covered is relevant. The article is mostly very well written.
Response 1: Thank you for taking the time to review our article. We are thrilled to hear that you found the topic relevant and that the writing is mostly well done. Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Thank you so much for your submission. There are some suggestions as follows: Why you choose this topic? what are your new ideas on ICT? What your efforts in this filed? More review on the current gap of ICT need to be added in this paper.
The discussion part need to be added more analysis of the results based on your method. What your theortrical method? All above questions need to be addressed and good luck!
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: Thank you so much for your submission. There are some suggestions as follows: Why you choose this topic?
Response 1: Thanks for reading our paper. We appreciate your suggestion to explain our topic choice. We are interested in ICT accessibility for persons with disabilities because technology can enhance social inclusion. We believe that measuring the national adoption rate and identifying key factors that influence it is important for decision-makers to understand ICT products and services and their compliance with international accessibility standards. MARSAD, our e-readiness assessment tool, was developed to achieve these goals and provide recommendations for improving digital access for persons with disabilities in Qatar with a focus on education and culture as a first step. The tool shows significant ICT infrastructure gaps and a genuine willingness to invest in change, aligning with sustainability and SDG 11. The tool can support e-readiness assessment studies and the development of accessible ICT products and services for persons with disabilities.
Point 2: what are your new ideas on ICT?
Response 2: Our study examines disability-related ICT accessibility adoption and its factors. MARSAD, our e-readiness assessment tool, measures the national ICT accessibility adoption rate and provides key recommendations for improving digital access. This tool can help develop accessible ICT products and services for persons with disabilities and support future e-readiness assessment studies. Our study emphasizes the need to understand ICT products and services, their compliance with international accessibility standards, and their use in a country to create inclusive policies and legislation. This study adds to the literature on how ICT promotes disability social inclusion.
>> A paragraph was added at the end of the introduction section to explain more about how it is novel.
Point 3: What your efforts in this filed?
Response 3: MARSAD aims to measure the national ICT accessibility adoption rate and develop key recommendations to improve digital access for persons with disabilities to access digital platforms of various Qatari government and semi-government institutions. Our study has involved the administration of MARSAD to 14 institutions in the domains of education and culture, and the results have demonstrated the need for improvement in the ICT infrastructure of these institutions to offer an inclusive digital environment.
Our efforts in this field aim to contribute to the development of accessible ICT products and services that cater to the needs of persons with disabilities, in line with the principles of sustainability and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 11.
Point 4: More review on the current gap of ICT need to be added in this paper.
Response 4: We added a new paragraph in the introduction with 4 references to address more the current gap of ICT and disability.
Point 5: The discussion part need to be added more analysis of the results based on your method. What your theortrical method?
Response 5: The theorotical model was adapted from the socio-technical system. We adjusted the figure 2 by adding a layer about the adapted system and added one more paragraph to explain more.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Very interesting. It is novel in its research.
It is recommended to add current references, they are not enough.
Encourage you to continue with further research on the subject.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: Very interesting. It is novel in its research.
It is recommended to add current references, they are not enough.
Encourage you to continue with further research on the subject.
Response 1:
Thank you for taking the time to review our article. We are thrilled to hear that you found the topic relevant and that the writing is mostly well done. Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated.
We added a new paragraph in the introduction with 4 references to address more the current gap of ICT and disability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)
This study investigates the impact of ICT has recolonized the lives of persons with disabilities in Qatar. It is a good idea, as ICT is influencing our behavior and business environment. Therefore, this topic addresses the gap in the field. However, the link with prior literature is weak. Therefore, it is recommended to the inclusion of broad literature. Authors should cite some articles on sustainability focusing on ICT in extended literature. The methodology is appropriate. The discussion on results should expand, leading to policy implications in the conclusion section. Overall paper is good, therefore, suggest minor changes to incorporate these suggestions.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 4 Comments
Point 1: This study investigates the impact of ICT has recolonized the lives of persons with disabilities in Qatar. It is a good idea, as ICT is influencing our behavior and business environment. Therefore, this topic addresses the gap in the field. However, the link with prior literature is weak. Therefore, it is recommended to the inclusion of broad literature. Authors should cite some articles on sustainability focusing on ICT in extended literature. The methodology is appropriate. The discussion on results should expand, leading to policy implications in the conclusion section. Overall paper is good, therefore, suggest minor changes to incorporate these suggestions.
Response 1:
Thank you for taking the time to review our article. We are thrilled to hear that you found the topic relevant and that the writing is mostly well done. Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated.
We added a new paragraph in the introduction with 4 references to address more the current gap of ICT and disability.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
This study presents an e-readiness assessment tool (MARSAD) that measures the utilization of accessible ICT, by people with disabilities, in various organizations in Qatar. This is an interesting subject, and I think the paper needs some modifications to become more scientifically sound.
In abstract, at the end of the 4th sentence (the purpose of the study) the country and the target population could be added (e.g., “..for people with disabilities in Qatar).
It is preferable not to include a Table in the introduction. The Qatar context (including ‘Mada Center’ and Table 1) could constitute a distinct sub-section, e.g., within section 2. At the end of the introduction the purpose/aim of the study should be stated. Lines 81-83 need to be rephrased in order to constitute 2 specific research questions (RQs), in correspondence to the general purpose of the study. These specific research questions could be placed at the beginning of Methodology.
In Table 2, all/major references to be added with regard to the specific readiness tools.
Sections 2 and 3 are somewhat lengthy (4 and 5,5 pages respectively), and these could be shortened. More specifically, the discussion-presentation on the 13 framework components could become more cohesive; e.g., the points-bullets linked to references [38] and [47] to be briefly discussed in a few lines.
The heading of Figure 1 (or at the relevant point within text) should mention how this Figure derives: is it the authors’ creation or is it based on xx study?
The Methodology (section 4) can include a few sub-sections such as Research Questions of the study, Sample, and Development of the theoretical model. The sample description could be enhanced by including participants’ characteristics (sample size, age range, student/employed, etc). It is mentioned that 14 organizations/institutions participated: does it mean that the number of responses was N=14? (this needs to be clearly stated). A brief description of the participant decision-makers would add value to the study. In between the two surveys (2019 to 2021), how many people were roughly trained per organization? The “MARSAD Survey” could be a sub-section of Methodology; the authors could also add some references, i.e., the studies they consulted for the development of the 20 survey questions.
Is Figure 7 the authors’ creation, after the study’s results?
The discussion would benefit by adding some references to indicate (dis)agreement with earlier research; currently there is no single reference in this section. Was there any communication/collaboration among the decision-makers of the different organizations (would this improve ICT accessibility or could this constitute an issue for future research)? Could future research examine the tool’s usefulness/usage in association with different types of disabilities?
All abbreviations (e.g., CID, APEC) should be fully stated when they are initially appear in the manuscript. In Line 44, where initially “SDG 11” is introduced, provide a reference for it. Lines 50-51, besides the “..” quotation place the page number or remove the quotes.
With regard to the English language, some minor points. In line 555, it writes “Each of the selected organizations was asked to complete the survey twice”: since it was people who completed the survey, it is better to refer to the people (executives/decision-makers..) who answered the survey within these organizations. Similarly, in line 572 “The survey aims to understand…”, it is better to rephrase (e.g., the survey aims to collect data in order to understand…”. In Figure 7, should the spelling be “awareness”?
Finally, the references do not follow the journal’s requirements.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 5 Comments
Point 1: This study presents an e-readiness assessment tool (MARSAD) that measures the utilization of accessible ICT, by people with disabilities, in various organizations in Qatar. This is an interesting subject, and I think the paper needs some modifications to become more scientifically sound.
In abstract, at the end of the 4th sentence (the purpose of the study) the country and the target population could be added (e.g., “..for people with disabilities in Qatar).
Response 1: . Thank you for taking the time to review our article. We are thrilled to hear that you found the topic relevant and that the writing is mostly well done. Your positive feedback is greatly appreciated. We updated the abstract based on your comment.
Point 2: It is preferable not to include a Table in the introduction. The Qatar context (including ‘Mada Center’ and Table 1) could constitute a distinct sub-section, e.g., within section 2.
Response 2: We agreed with your comment. We reviewed the section 1 and 2. The Qatari context was shifted to section 2 in where we divided the whole section into 4 sub-sections to be more clearer and easy to read.
Point 3: At the end of the introduction the purpose/aim of the study should be stated.
Response 3: A new paragraph was added at the end of section 1.
Point 4: Lines 81-83 need to be rephrased in order to constitute 2 specific research questions (RQs), in correspondence to the general purpose of the study. These specific research questions could be placed at the beginning of Methodology.
Response 4: We moved the research question paragraph to the beginning of section 3.
“The methodology aims to investigate the factors that influence the adoption of ICT accessibility measures by government institutions and the impact of these factors on the overall accessibility of government-provided services for individuals with disabilities. In order to achieve this objective, the study will be structured around two specific research questions: "What factors influence the adoption of ICT accessibility measures by government institutions?" and "How do these factors impact the overall accessibility of government-provided services for individuals with disabilities?"”
Point 5: In Table 2, all/major references to be added with regard to the specific readiness tools.
Response 5: We added all references.
Point 6: Sections 2 and 3 are somewhat lengthy (4 and 5,5 pages respectively), and these could be shortened. More specifically, the discussion-presentation on the 13 framework components could become more cohesive; e.g., the points-bullets linked to references [38] and [47] to be briefly discussed in a few lines.
Response 6: We divided section 2 on sub-section to be easier for the readers as per point #2. The bullet points in section 3 were rewritten.
Point 7: The heading of Figure 1 (or at the relevant point within text) should mention how this Figure derives: is it the authors’ creation or is it based on xx study?
Response 7: it is the authors’ creation based on existing policies and tools. We updated the legend section.
Point 8: The Methodology (section 4) can include a few sub-sections such as Research Questions of the study, Sample, and Development of the theoretical model. The sample description could be enhanced by including participants’ characteristics (sample size, age range, student/employed, etc). It is mentioned that 14 organizations/institutions participated: does it mean that the number of responses was N=14? (this needs to be clearly stated). A brief description of the participant decision-makers would add value to the study. In between the two surveys (2019 to 2021), how many people were roughly trained per organization? The “MARSAD Survey” could be a sub-section of Methodology; the authors could also add some references, i.e., the studies they consulted for the development of the 20 survey questions.
Response 8: We updated the whole section as per your recommendation. The section looks more clearer.
Point 9: Is Figure 7 the authors’ creation, after the study’s results?
Response 9: Yes.
Point 10: The discussion would benefit by adding some references to indicate (dis)agreement with earlier research; currently there is no single reference in this section. Was there any communication/collaboration among the decision-makers of the different organizations (would this improve ICT accessibility or could this constitute an issue for future research)? Could future research examine the tool’s usefulness/usage in association with different types of disabilities?
Response 10: We updated the section by adding two references and enhancing the content.
Point 11: All abbreviations (e.g., CID, APEC) should be fully stated when they are initially appear in the manuscript. In Line 44, where initially “SDG 11” is introduced, provide a reference for it.
Response 11: All abbreviations were fixed and reference added for SDG 11.
Point 12: Lines 50-51, besides the “..” quotation place the page number or remove the quotes.
Response 12: Fixed.
Point 13: With regard to the English language, some minor points. In line 555, it writes “Each of the selected organizations was asked to complete the survey twice”: since it was people who completed the survey, it is better to refer to the people (executives/decision-makers..) who answered the survey within these organizations.
Response 13: Fixed as per the response of point 8 where we identified the person who is responsible to answer the survey.
Point 14: Similarly, in line 572 “The survey aims to understand…”, it is better to rephrase (e.g., the survey aims to collect data in order to understand…”. In Figure 7, should the spelling be “awareness”?
Response 14: Fixed.
Point 15: Finally, the references do not follow the journal’s requirements.
Response 15: Fixed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Good luck and no questions on this version.
Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)
I consider the paper has been improved, the authors made the changes requested. Well done.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There are some vagueness concerning the main research questions. The research questions are not explicitly stated. In the abstract of the work, the challenges of determining and measuring the national ICT accessibility adoption rate and the need to determine and improve the state of digital access for persons with disabilities in society are stated.
However, in the final part of the paper (pp. 16-17) where the e-readiness assessment tool (MARSAD) is presented, it is clear that it contains only four (4) direct questions regarding the challenge: "digital access for people with disabilities". It should be discussed whether this is sufficient to draw appropriate conclusions
The research was conducted for organizations within the education domain and for organizations within culture and community sectors, in Qatar. Therefore, with regard to previous research, it would be desirable to list findings, publications, relevant for insight into the conditions in similar organizations elsewhere in the world.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time. Your comments were very fruitful to enhance the paper. Here our actions applied:
|
ID |
Comment |
Actions |
|
1 |
There are some vagueness concerning the main research questions. The research questions are not explicitly stated. In the abstract of the work, the challenges of determining and measuring the national ICT accessibility adoption rate and the need to determine and improve the state of digital access for persons with disabilities in society are stated. |
We updated the abstract by highlighting the research question related to ICT Accessibility adoption rate which is “what factors influence the adoption of ICT accessibility within government institutions?”. We updated the introduction section by clearly adding the research question (highlighted in orange).
|
|
2 |
However, in the final part of the paper (pp. 16-17) where the e-readiness assessment tool (MARSAD) is presented, it is clear that it contains only four (4) direct questions regarding the challenge: "digital access for people with disabilities". It should be discussed whether this is sufficient to draw appropriate conclusions. |
We highlighted that factors influencing the ICT Accessibility landscape within the country are included in the 4 parts of the survey. The updated content in the paper is highlighted in orange at Section 5. |
|
3 |
The research was conducted for organizations within the education domain and for organizations within culture and community sectors, in Qatar. Therefore, with regard to previous research, it would be desirable to list findings, publications, relevant for insight into the conditions in similar organizations elsewhere in the world. |
The research project was only limited to the scope of the organization who conducted the survey in Qatar. In future work, we aim to extend the work to all government and semi-government institutions in the country for different domains not limited to Education and Culture.
We tried to find publications linked to similar conditions, and unfortunately we couldn’t find.
|
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Author
the topic of your paper is interesting but some improvements are required before publication. Please find below my suggestions:
- as first, I'd suggest to highlight the link between the topic and the journal (Sustainability), the term Sustainable is used only once on p.2
- in the Introduction section, more recent papers can be cited
- section 2 Background: how did you collect the papers used to describe the background? E.g., systematic literature review? Other type of review? Also in this section, references should be updated.
- Please clarify how the "13 critical components of the E-Readiness Assessment related to implementing an accessible ICT ecosystem" have been identified.
- How have been selected the organizations involved in the study? Some more information about these organizations (also schematically reported in a table) should be useful.
- The content of the survey can be moved to an appendix.
- Discussions on the results of the survey have to be improved in section 7.
- What are the limitations (if any) of the study and future research?
- Pay attention to typos (e.g.: Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.)
Good luck with your study!
Author Response
|
ID |
Comment |
Actions |
|
1 |
the topic of your paper is interesting but some improvements are required before publication. Please find below my suggestions: |
Thank you for reviewing the paper. Below our actions. |
|
2 |
- as first, I'd suggest to highlight the link between the topic and the journal (Sustainability), the term Sustainable is used only once on p.2 |
We believe that this manuscript is appropriate for publication in the “Sustainability” journal because it fits the scope of the journal especially the special issue “Sustainable Rebuilding and Good Governance” as it covers the following keywords highlighted in the scope of the special issue: participation, inclusion and disability management, digital transformations and participatory design, co-creation and organizational sustainability.
Also, the SDG goals #4, #10 and #11 mentioned some rights of the persons with disabilities covering the quality of education, reduced inequality and sustainable cities.
|
|
3 |
- in the Introduction section, more recent papers can be cited |
We added more paper citations related to the topic (highlighted in blue).
|
|
4 |
- section 2 Background: how did you collect the papers used to describe the background? E.g., systematic literature review? Other type of review? Also in this section, references should be updated. |
We conducted a literature review of existing tools used to measure the e-readiness (highlighted in blue). |
|
5 |
- Please clarify how the "13 critical components of the E-Readiness Assessment related to implementing an accessible ICT ecosystem" have been identified. |
The framework identifies 13 critical components of the E-Readiness Assessment re-lated to implementing an accessible ICT ecosystem based on the research outcome of Averweg in 2009 [13].
We updated the section accordingly (highlighted in blue, section3)
|
|
6 |
- How have been selected the organizations involved in the study? Some more information about these organizations (also schematically reported in a table) should be useful. |
Organizations were selected based on the mission and vision of the organization who conducted the survey. In future work, we are expanding the work to all government institutions in the country as we mentioned in section 4.
“We limited our study to the organizations that are under the education and culture sector as per the Mada Center mission and vision. For that, we added a new metric linked to the relevance on the target sector (axis Y).”
|
|
7 |
- The content of the survey can be moved to an appendix. |
We moved the survey questions to Appendix A and we updated section 5 (highlighted in Blue).
|
|
8 |
- Discussions on the results of the survey have to be improved in section 7. |
We enhanced the discussion section by adding key elements for researchers (highlighted in blue).
|
|
9 |
- What are the limitations (if any) of the study and future research? |
We added limitation in the conclusion (highlighted in blue)
|
|
10 |
- Pay attention to typos (e.g.: Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.) |
Sorry for that. We fixed all figure titles. |
|
11 |
Good luck with your study! |
Thanks a lot ! |
Reviewer 3 Report
There are some suggestions as follows:1. more liteature on ICT accessiblility and there is not sufficient analysis on this; 2. More recent 5 five studies on this topic need more illustrations; 3. The method is not comprehenisve and need more content to add to explore the process of your sampling; 4. The result is not very clear and need more focus; 5. the disscussion should be added and the limitations of this study should to be state clearly; 6. What are the next step for future studies? 7. the references should be added into 80.
Author Response
|
ID |
Comment |
Actions |
|
|
There are some suggestions as follows: |
Thank you for reviewing the paper. Below our actions. |
|
1 |
1. more liteature on ICT accessiblility and there is not sufficient analysis on this; |
We adjusted the background section (highlighted in blue). |
|
2 |
2. More recent 5 five studies on this topic need more illustrations; |
|
|
3 |
3. The method is not comprehenisve and need more content to add to explore the process of your sampling; |
We updated the methodology section , and we mentioned that our sample is limited to education and culture. In future, we are expanding the work to all domains. (the updated content and justification highlighted in green)
|
|
4 |
4. The result is not very clear and need more focus; |
We enhanced the discussion section by adding key elements and clarification for researchers (highlighted in blue).
|
|
5 |
5. the disscussion should be added and the limitations of this study should to be state clearly; |
We added limitation in the conclusion (highlighted in blue)
|
|
6 |
6. What are the next step for future studies? |
We updated the conclusion (highlighted in green). |
|
7 |
7. the references should be added into 80. |
We fixed all references according to MDPI style. |
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
accept!
