Systematic Mapping of Digital Gap and Gender, Age, Ethnicity, or Disability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

First of all, congratulation for your effort in improving this manuscript. I enjoyed reading it again.

Based on my reading, the authors successfully addressed the previously identified flaws. Improvements were made in accordance with the suggestions.

Well done and good luck.

Author Response

Dear evaluator,

Thank you very much for the review of the article and the notes that have helped us to clarify the data. We would like to inform you of the attention we have paid to your comments; you can see our answers marked in yellow in the table below. We have also used the "Track change" option in the article document to integrate all the changes indicated by the evaluators.

We will remain attentive to your feedback and very grateful for your time and help to improve the writing.

Best regards

Inés Alvarez Icaza Longria

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author(s)

It was my pleasure to review your manuscript entitled “systematic mapping of digital gap and gender, age, ethnicity or disability” and advise you to prosper your current research project. In my view, your topic has touched on a critical issue in a fascinating context. However, there are many spaces to be improved in terms of argumentation, theoretical background, research method, and findings. I hope my below comments would help you develop your work into groundbreaking research in your domain.

Positioning, purpose, introduction and research gap.

• The first of all, the reference to this title and these authors was published in 2021, please let the authors explain about this source? Was it just data or? Because the abstract of the article has been published and this article is quite similar.  Alvarez Icaza Longoria, I., Ramírez Montoya, M. S., Bustamante Bello, M. R., & Molina Gutiérrez, A. (2021). Dataset for Systematic Mapping on Digital Gap and gender, age, disability, or ethnicity.
•  
• The introduction needs a major overhaul because it does not show your theoretical contribution.
• Open the topic further with reference to previous literature and explain why there is little literature in this area.
• Explain 2 lines about the importance and contribution at the end of the article.

Method

• Insufficient transparency. The authors need to provide much more details on their method, including data gathering and data analysis.
• Authors should explain their research method further.
• How many articles were identified? How many articles were reviewed?
• What field has journals and publisher been most considered by researchers?
• How were the technical characteristics (validity and reliability) measured in this study?
• Why did you choose this analyse for your research?

Discussion and conclusion contributions.

• Lack of substantive conclusions. The discussion of your results was very cursory. The author's intended purpose is to provide the systematic mapping of digital gap and gender, age, ethnicity or disability ". In this sense, the explicit intentions of the authors are yet to be fulfilled in the current version of the paper. The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, suggest implications for theory and practice and, perhaps, develop recommendations for further research.

What suggestions do you have for other researchers to continue your work?

The main limitations of the research should be written in this section that is specific to your research and other researchers should continue your work by giving appropriate suggestions in this section.

Another round of spellchecking by a native speaker is highly recommended.

Best of luck with the further development of the paper.

Author Response

Dear Evaluator,

Thank you very much for the review of the article and the notes that have helped us to clarify the data. We would like to inform you of the attention we have paid to your comments; you can see our answers marked in yellow in the table below. We have also used the "Track change" option in the article document to integrate all the changes indicated by the evaluators.

We will remain attentive to your feedback and very grateful for your time and help to improve the writing.

Best regards

Inés Alvarez-Icaza Longoria

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations on your revisions to the new version of the manuscript. The connection of the manuscript with the scope of the journal as well as the scope of the research has been revealed more clearly. In addition, in the introduction part of the manuscript, the concept of “digital divide” was also emphasized. In this way, the reader was provided both to have information about this keyword and to learn why this concept was not included in the scope of the manuscript. In the manuscript, the sustainability relationship of the concept of digital gap was discussed. This section, which was weak in the first version of the manuscript, has been improved. The conclusion part of the study offered valuable suggestions for future research. These clear recommendations, included with the revision, increased the quality of the research. It is clear that the manuscript has become more distinguished when these corrections are taken into account. Congratulations.

However, in the introduction part, the reasons for the heterogeneous structure of digital gap-themed researches were not examined in the discussion part, and the specific reasons for this heterogeneous structure were not revealed. Doing this will bring the manuscript to an important place in its field.

With all respect.

I wish you success in your work.

Author Response

Dear Evaluator,

Thank you very much for the review of the article and the notes that have helped us to clarify the data. We would like to inform you of the attention we have paid to your comments; you can see our answers marked in yellow in the table below. We have also used the "Track change" option in the article document to integrate all the changes indicated by the evaluators.

We will remain attentive to your feedback and very grateful for your time and help to improve the writing.

Best regards

Inés Alvarez-Icaza Longoria

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The indiscriminate use of labels that are presented in italics, as well as in quotation marks, may raise doubts as to whether a textual quotation is being produced or whether the concept being discussed is being emphasised. Concepts such as "Digital Gap" or "Digital devide" are constantly repeated with these characteristics. 

The reference to the Sustainable Development Goals (in allusion to the 4th) is minimal, when there are studies such as https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5944/reec.38.2021.29017, https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.5944/reec.38.2021.28840 or https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1007/s11125-020-09485-y that can help the authors to contextualise this proposal. 

Table 2 uses a large number of brackets which, for a differentiated reading, makes it difficult to understand the labels, when it is more appropriate for them to appear with a semicolon. Likewise, in this table, the use of bold should only be used for titles and not for descriptors. 

In figure 3, in order for the map to take on its intended significance, the values of the three countries with the most publications should be shown so that the map becomes meaningful. Without this, the commentary would be more than sufficient. 

Since the Sustainable Development Goals have been referenced in the theoretical framework, they should appear in both the conclusions and the foresight, as the subject matter of the article shows. In this line, it would be appropriate to consider emerging technologies which, once the data have been analysed, can be studied in the future in the researchers' foresight. 

 

Author Response

Dear Evaluator,

Thank you very much for the review of the article and the notes that have helped us to clarify the data. We would like to inform you of the attention we have paid to your comments; you can see our answers marked in yellow in the table below. We have also used the "Track change" option in the article document to integrate all the changes indicated by the evaluators.

We will remain attentive to your feedback and very grateful for your time and help to improve the writing.

Best regards

Inés Alvarez-Icaza Longoria

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read your paper. According to the review of this article, the corrections have been made. but you need to change the abstract slightly so that it does not look like a published abstract. 

Best wishes

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

Dear authors,

First, congratulations for doing extensive research. However, your work has some fundamental shortcomings. I think the two most important shortcomings are;

1. One of the main results of the research is that the finding (RQ3) that “less developed countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America do not discuss this issue” was obtained from only two databases. Because in order to reach a judgment about these countries, it would be, appropriate to look at other national and international published researches.
2. The basic keyword of the research is “digital gap”. However, in many international and national studies on this subject, the keyword "digital divide" is used both in English and in its version in different languages. In this respect, the research contains another fundamental deficiency.

Apart from this, eliminating the following deficiencies in the article will make the article more qualified:

1. In the introduction, the relationship between the concept of digital gap and sustainability is quite weak. It would be appropriate to emphasize this relationship sufficiently and to deal with the relationship between sustainability and digital gap in a literal way.
2. In the research, it is seen that disadvantages such as “poverty, immigration and minority” are ignored. This may lead to a defect in the design of the study. It is recommended that the research be expanded in this context.
3. Although the reasons for the heterogeneous nature of digital gap-themed research are mentioned in the introduction, it would be better to examine the subject in the discussion section specific to the articles examined in this research and to reveal the specific reasons for this heterogeneous structure.
4. The purpose of such analyzes is to reveal new research topics for future studies in the light of the findings and results. In the conclusion part of this research, it would be appropriate to make more and more clear recommendations regarding this.

Kind regards.

I wish you success in your work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It is a pleasure to read your paper. You have treated the subject well and comprehensively.  While it is true that the topic is relevant given the recent events caused by the pandemic, the approach and the results obtained do not add anything new to the huge number of studies on the same subject. It is only a superficial quantitative description that does not provide any relevant conclusions.

As for the methodology, although it is correct, there are a number of aspects that should be improve in order to strengthen research, for example, a justification of the databases chosen. Likewise, the keywords used may imply a certain bias in that they are based on previous considerations about possible vulnerable areas. A more subjective choice would have been the use of the term “vulnerable group”. For all these reasons and others, I consider that the article is not suitable for the journal.

Yours Sincerly.

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper #: Sustainability-1413571

 Paper title: Systematic Mapping of Digital Gap and Gender, Age, Ethnicity or Disability

Dear author(s)

It was my pleasure to review your manuscript entitled “systematic mapping of digital gap and gender, age, ethnicity or disability” and advise you to prosper your current research project. In my view, your topic has touched on a critical issue in a fascinating context. However, there are many spaces to be improved in terms of argumentation, theoretical background, research method, and findings. I hope my below comments would help you develop your work into groundbreaking research in your domain.

Positioning, purpose, introduction and research gap.

• The positioning of the paper is not entirely clear. It is better to explain the gap of this article further.
• The abstract has needs to be revised. You can use the findings section of the article.
• The introduction needs a major overhaul because it does not show your theoretical contribution.
• Open the topic further with reference to previous literature and explain why there is little literature in this area.
• What is the importance and necessity of this research?
• Explain 2 lines about the importance and contribution at the end of the article.
• Please provide more information on the context of your study. I would like to understand the context of your empirical work better and what can be learned from selecting observations in this area?

Method

• Insufficient transparency. The authors need to provide much more details on their method, including data gathering and data analysis.
• Why did you choose this analyse for your research?
• In my opinion, firstly, omission and addition standards are not well designed (for example to include articles with those key terms in their title and abstract or in their body). Secondly, there is an overlap between some of them and it is not explained by the researcher, for example majority of articles indexed in WOS are also indexed in Scopus and finding 137 articles in Scopus on a topic in which there are only 89 articles in WOS looks not possible.

Discussion and conclusion contributions.

• Lack of substantive conclusions. The author's intended purpose is to provide systematic mapping of digital gap and gender, age, ethnicity or disability ". In this sense, the explicit intentions of the authors are yet to be fulfilled in the current version of the paper. The authors need to draw substantive conclusions from their results, suggest implications for theory and practice and, perhaps, develop recommendations for further research.
• At the moment, I cannot see a discussion of your findings. The chapter is that is now entitled as "Conclusion" should link back to the literature and show theoretical contributions, that exceed the conclusion that some literature was "inline" with the findings of the authors.

How your research results can be used in other articles?

What suggestions do you have for other researchers to continue your work?

Another round of spellchecking by a native speaker is highly recommended.

Reference.

Using the following references could be beneficial as these add more evidence to the literature review section:

Dana, L. P., Tajpour, M., Salamzadeh, A., Hosseini, E., & Zolfaghari, M. (2021). The Impact of Entrepreneurial Education on Technology-Based Enterprises Development: The Mediating Role of Motivation. Administrative Sciences, 11(4), 105. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/admsci11040105

 Best of luck with the further development of the paper.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors,

First of all, congratulation for your effort in writing this manuscript. I enjoyed reading it. 

This manuscript is in trend with global effort for digitalization and address suitable concern on the global digital gap that exists for the past two decades. I believes, it have sufficient potential to impact the newer research to come from the aspect of literature review.

However, humbly I would like to suggest the following amendment for improvement:

Introduction

1. Page 2, second paragraph - It is a bit confusing and make this sentence seem not in align with the writing before it. Could the authors please revise this paragraph. What is actually the roles played by "social-justice-oriented interaction design" with the issue of the digital gap? Perhaps the authors could elaborate more into this?
2. Page 2, second paragraph - about the need to consider the understanding of the product system, ergonomics and cognitive psychology..." Please elaborate its relationship or role in current issue of digital gap.

Methods

1. The methodology is clearly written. Yet, some part of the writing need improvement. The authors had obtained 40 documents when using "digital gap" AND "inclusion" in Scopus. Then, it was followed by by nearly 1000 more when the authors included "technological gap". Please revise what is actually mean by 1000 more documents to refine the methodology so that it is easily replicable by other scholars in the future.
2. Table 1, RQ6: The accessibility technology and digital divide was not discussed directly before this. Thus, the novelty or the need for this RQ is not visible. 
3. What are the search queries used to get the 89 results in WoS and 137 in Scopus?
4. Why was the 21 documents were eliminated after the through search about the "digital gap" or "technological gap"? 

Extraction of relevant findings from Articles

1. 3.3 (RQ3) about the geographical location of the principle authors. It is lovely to have this data being analyzed from the literature. It really help scholars in understanding the distribution or location of related research conducted in the past two decades. However, what does this data mean? What is the conclusion can be drawn from this data is more important that simply the result alone. From the discussion, the conclusion that the possible bias in the world's poorest areas is relatively vague. As there are some advanced economy in the southern part of the globe and Asia as well. There might be some other reason these rich nations are also not discussing the digital gap as shown by your Figure 3. Please make discussion about this, so that we can have a wider perspective on the findings.
2. 3.4 (RQ4a and RQ4b): What can be concluded from this data? As the discussion is more toward elaborating the finding instead of coming out with a clear inference or conclusion.
3. Figure 5. Does the metric and figure reflect which topics are important and need further attention? or which topics are actually less covered, created research gap and need further research? Please write some discussion about which topics are important and need further attention.

Discussion

1. For RQ3, please refer to comment in Extraction of relevant finding from articles - comment no 1.
2. For RQ4, please refer to comment in Extraction of relevant finding from articles - comment no 2.
3. For RQ5, please refer to comment in Extraction of relevant finding from articles - comment no 3.

Than you. Hopefully my comments would be helpful for the authors to make improvement.