The Digitization of Seniors: Analyzing the Multiple Confluence of Social and Spatial Divides
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for such an interesting paper. I found the article built a detailed picture of the digital issues among older adults in Spain.
My one suggestion is that in both the introduction and the conclusion, the issue of AGEISM in terms of its effect on digital use and skills be discussed. Ageism might explain some of the difficulties older adults face - if they are constantly discouraged from using technology, if their skills are not supported but derided, this will have flow on effects.
See this article for an overview:
Chang E-S, Kannoth S, Levy S, Wang S-Y,
Lee JE, Levy BR (2020) Global reach of ageism on
older persons’ health: A systematic review. PLoS
ONE 15(1): e0220857. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0220857
Author Response
We appreciate the kind review as well as the recommendation to discuss ageism in our paper.
The bibliographical suggestion that he/she makes to us has been included in the bibliographic review section and in the discussion section. The concept of ageism is relevant to explain the low digitization of the seniors and we have found necessary to expand the bibliography on this issue a little more, beyond the reviewer's suggestion. References on ageism: [38, 39, 40].
Chang E-S, Kannoth S, Levy S, Wang S-Y, Lee JE, Levy BR. Global reach of ageism on older persons’ health: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0220857. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220857
Rosales A. Fernández-Ardevol, M. Ageism in the era of digital plataforms. The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 2020, Vol. 26(5-6) 1074–1087. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354856520930905
Manor, S. Herscovici, A. Digital ageism: a new kind of discrimination. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies. Vo3, Issue 5. 2021. 1084-1093. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.299
We have the limitation that our data does not allow us to go deeper empirically, but it has been possible to point out in the approach and then in the discussion, although we have not been able to go deeper with our own data.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
thank you for writing a very interesting manuscript about digital divide and seniors. The topic is very relevant and it brings up-to-date insights into an important area. With the inclusion of geospatial variables, the manuscript adds an important contribution to the journal Land.
Please, see my comments in the attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We especially appreciate the interest and thoroughness of this reviewer, who has made really good contributions to improve the paper. His/her precise and detailed indications of the aspects to review throughout the text have helped us a lot and it has been easy for us to follow them step by step. We have paid much attention to recommendations, which we value and greatly appreciate. We have almost always attended to them, and only on a few occasions have we felt that they were not appropriate, justifying it. But on these few occasions (when we thought nothing needed to be changed), we have also taken the comment into account, improving expository clarity so that readers do not receive the same impression as the reviewer and understand those aspects more clearly. An example of these few situations is the recommendation to eliminate the category 'not apply' from the tables where the skill classification appears. In the original classification of the INE (and Eurostat) it appears this way, but in our analysis it is necessary to keep it, because it refers to those who do not use the Internet and for the purposes of our analysis we cannot eliminate it. In this way, we have changed the label 'not apply' to 'not internet users' so as not to give the impression that it is a residual category or that it is not appropriate to analyze it. Regarding other details, we have answered all the comments of the reviewer in the same document that he/she provided us and that we now attach. In this we systematically report the execution of the suggested changes and in a few cases we explain why we did not follow the recommendations.
He/she have often asked us for interpretations of the data. This has surprised us a bit. Perhaps because we valued more than this person the importance of the descriptive aspects of the data we presented, almost always aimed at knowing the explanatory weights of the different variables, which is an important objective of our article. Even so, we have followed their recommendations and expanded the interpretative explanations a little more, which will undoubtedly help readers less familiar with the subject and the methodology to better understand.
We also explain that, following his/her instructions, we have written a new introduction and have created a new section called background. The introduction is now very brief and serves to explain to the reader what our purposes are in this paper, to explain the most general approaches and to anticipate what the reader will read in the following sections. This section incorporates the definition of senior and justification for the term, which in the previous version appeared in a footer; it has now been incorporated into the text of the introduction.
In the background, the aspects that were previously included in the introduction appear, but at the beginning a new conceptual introduction about digital divide and inequalities divide has been written, exposing later with new text paragraphs about the most general aspects of the theoretical framework that we are using. Then the specific details appeared already in the text that had already been presented in the introduction of the previous version. This bibliographic review had already been done, although it is true that the general approaches of the theoretical framework were implicit or partially commented on later. We believe that by adding this general, conceptual and theoretical introduction, the bibliographical review is clearly connected for the reader to a theoretical framework and to a line of research that is currently dominant in the analysis of the digital society. On some occasions we have made minor adjustments to this earlier text to improve expository clarity.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The author(s) of the manuscript examined the relationship between several aspects of seniors digital literacy and the degree of their integration into the use of digital technology.
The basic sections (introduction,method, conclusion, literature cited, etc.) are adequate and the manuscripts material order is easy to follow. The author(s) writing style was clear but some spelling mistakes are present.
In the introduction, the authors present the literature review and the aims of their research. In the next section, the method of the research procedure is well described, as well as the results and the conclusions.
The manuscript is overall well-written and explanatory.
As far as the international section of the literature review I would like to point out a research from Greece that it might be useful
Drigas, A., & Papagerasimou, Y. (2015). Intergenerational Learning for the E-Inclusion of Senior Citizens through the prism of the GRANKIT Project. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), 12(6), 64.
It might be a good idea to expand the section of the literature review by briefly analyzing the role of cognitive and metacognitive skills and the role of ICTs.
As an example :
Repetto, M., & Trentin, G. (2008). ICT and lifelong learning for senior citizens. Journal of e-learning and knowledge society, 4(1), 189-198.
United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs,Population Division. World Population Ageing 2013, NewYork: United Nations, 2013
Orzea, I., & Bratianu, C. (2012, October). Intergenerational learning in ageing societies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning-ICICKM (pp. 193-200).
European Commission (DG ECFIN) and the EconomicPolicy Committee (AWG), The 2015 Ageing Report:Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies,European Union, 2014.
Drigas, A., & Mitsea, E. (2021). 8 Pillars X 8 Layers Model of Metacognition: Educational Strategies, Exercises &Trainings. International Journal of Online & Biomedical Engineering, 17(8).
Slaght, E., & Stampley, C. (2006). Promoting intergenerational practice. Journal of intergenerational Relationships, 4(3), 73-86.
Cummings, S. M., Williams, M. M., & Ellis, R. A. (2002). Impact of an Intergenerational Program on 4th Graders' Attitudes Toward Elders and School Behaviors. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 6(3), 91-107.
Congratulations for your fine work
Author Response
We appreciate this kind review.
Regarding the comment about the presence of some stilign mistakes, we have revised the text detecting some small errors. We have also asked a native translator to review all the text again, for greater security.
Regarding the bibliographic recommendations, it is not the objective of our research to delve into intervention programs and projects to improve the social problem that the low or null digitization of seniors entails. Our objective has been to describe and analyze the sociological situation with the chosen social and spatial variables. The paper is very broad and delves into already quite diverse aspects, so delving into another new aspect seems excessive. In addition, there was no time to develop it when we received the comments from the third reviewer. However, at the end of the discussion section, when we mention the magnitude of the problem, it seemed possible and timely to make a brief reference to the need and possibilities of increasing digitization, with which we quote some of the recommended references, which we have considered suitable for this purpose, which would be to glimpse the way forward to improve. They are references [45, 46, 47 48].
Drigas, A., & Papagerasimou, Y. Intergenerational Learning for the E-Inclusion of Senior Citizens through the prism of the GRANKIT Project. International Journal of Computer Science Issues (IJCSI), 12(6), 64. 2015. http://ijcsi.org/papers/IJCSI-12-6-64-71.pdf
Orzea, I., & Bratianu, C. Intergenerational learning in ageing societies. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Intellectual Capital, Knowledge Management and Organizational Learning-ICICKM (pp. 193-200). 2012. https://www.academia.edu/20895868/Intergenerational_Learning_in_Ageing_Societies
Cummings, S. M., Williams, M. M., & Ellis, R. A. Impact of an Intergenerational Program on 4th Graders' Attitudes Toward Elders and School Behaviors. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 6(3), 91-107. 2002. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J137v06n03_06
Slaght, E., & Stampley, C. Promoting intergenerational practice. Journal of intergenerational Relationships, 4(3), 73-86. 2006. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J194v04n03_06
We have also made some changes in the discussion section and in the interpretation of the data to improve the clarity of the results presented.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All queries have been satisfactorily answered and I recommend publication.
