Enhancing Comprehensive Sexuality Education for Students with Disabilities: Insights from Ontario’s Educational Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. i think that the manuscript will be of great interest to readers of Sexes. I think that there are a few different edits that the authors could make to the manuscript that would increase its contribution to the literature. 

1. I so appreciate the focus on disability - however, I wonder about the inclusion of intersectional identities within the manuscript. The authors should consider other social and cultural identities in addition to queerphobia (#7 in the manuscript). The authors should provide a definition of intersectionality in the beginning section of the manuscript and use intersectional language to examine how disability may intersect with other identities (such as race, ethnicity, geographic origin, religion, etc.) as well. 

2. The authors should be commended for their thorough review of the context of CSE in Ontario. I appreciate the ways in which the description of Ontario's educational landscape aided in my reading the rest of the manuscript. One areas was lacking, however - are there any existing data to suggest outcomes of CSE in Ontario? Any qualitative data to suggest that the existing curricula need to be more inclusive? Such data would increase the rigor of your rationale and add more depth to your landscape discussion (#3). 

3. The authors' recommendations that are peppered throughout the manuscript are a strength of this submission. In the section titled "further recommendations" (#8), I would insert 3-4 sentences in the beginning of the section that summarizes these recommendations, making it easier for the reader to synthesize all recommendations throughout the manuscript. would find ways to summarize 

4. I would encourage the authors to review several pieces of literature that would be helpful in revising this manuscript:

(a) Gibbon, T. C., Monaco, E. A. H., & Bateman, D. F. (Eds.). (2021). Sexuality education for students with disabilities. Rowman & Littlefield.

(b) Burnes, T. R. (2017). Flying faster than the birds and the bees: Toward a sex-positive theory and practice in multicultural education. In R. K. Gordon, T. Akutsu, J. C. McDermott, & J. W. Lalas (Eds.), Challenges associated with cross-cultural and at-risk student engagement (pp. 171-189). IGI Global Publishing.

Thank-you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you so much for your feedback. We have found it incredibly helpful and are responding to each point below. 

1. I so appreciate the focus on disability - however, I wonder about the inclusion of intersectional identities within the manuscript. The authors should consider other social and cultural identities in addition to queerphobia (#7 in the manuscript). The authors should provide a definition of intersectionality in the beginning section of the manuscript and use intersectional language to examine how disability may intersect with other identities (such as race, ethnicity, geographic origin, religion, etc.) as well.

 

Thank you for the suggestion and feedback. We have added more intersectional language throughout the article and have added mentions of how different forms of structural oppressions impact the well-being of individuals (such as a mention of social determinants of health and reference to minority theory, for example).

 

2. The authors should be commended for their thorough review of the context of CSE in Ontario. I appreciate the ways in which the description of Ontario's educational landscape aided in my reading the rest of the manuscript. One areas was lacking, however - are there any existing data to suggest outcomes of CSE in Ontario? Any qualitative data to suggest that the existing curricula need to be more inclusive? Such data would increase the rigor of your rationale and add more depth to your landscape discussion (#3).

 

We have added in a reference to a study by Farmer et al. (2019) that illustrates how despite the updates to sexuality education curricular documents in Ontario, many school settings still teaching sexuality education through an abstinence approach. We have also added references to qualitative research studies that discuss the need to make the current documents more inclusive.

 

3. The authors' recommendations that are peppered throughout the manuscript are a strength of this submission. In the section titled "further recommendations" (#8), I would insert 3-4 sentences in the beginning of the section that summarizes these recommendations, making it easier for the reader to synthesize all recommendations throughout the manuscript. would find ways to summarize

 

We appreciate this suggestion and have added 3-4 sentences into this section summarizing some of our recommendations.

 

4. I would encourage the authors to review several pieces of literature that would be helpful in revising this manuscript: (a) Gibbon, T. C., Monaco, E. A. H., & Bateman, D. F. (Eds.). (2021). Sexuality education for students with disabilities. Rowman & Littlefield. (b) Burnes, T. R. (2017). Flying faster than the birds and the bees: Toward a sex-positive theory and practice in multicultural education. In R. K. Gordon, T. Akutsu, J. C. McDermott, & J. W. Lalas (Eds.), Challenges associated with cross-cultural and at-risk student engagement (pp. 171-189). IGI Global Publishing. Thank-you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

 

We appreciate this recommendation and read these sources and have cited them now in our article.

Thank you for your generous feedback. It has increased our article’s thoroughness and improved its quality.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Enhancing Comprehensive Sexuality Education for Students with Disabilities: Insights from Ontario's Educational Framework" to the Journal of Sexes. After a thorough review , it is evident that your article holds significant potential for contributing to the field of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) for students with disabilities. However, from my point of view, several major revisions are required to ensure the clarity, depth, and coherence of your work.

Below are the key areas that need attention before we can consider your manuscript for publication:

1. Abstract: While the abstract provides an overview of the article's topic, it needs to be more succinct and provide a clearer summary of the main findings and recommendations. It should also highlight the practical implications of the study

2. Introduction: The introduction should be expanded to clearly define the purpose and objectives of the study. Additionally, provide a more comprehensive literature review to establish the gaps in the existing research related to CSE for students with disabilities

3. Specific Recommendations: In each section discussing challenges and recommendations for different disability categories, provide explicit and actionable recommendations that educators, policymakers, and researchers can implement. These recommendations should be detailed and supported by relevant evidence or examples.

4. Global Relevance: Elaborate on the global significance of the insights and recommendations you provide. Discuss how these recommendations can be adapted or applied in various international contexts, acknowledging cultural differences and unique challenges.

5. Citations and References: Thoroughly review the citations and references to ensure accuracy, consistency, and adherence to the journal's citation guidelines.

6. Conclusion: Revise the conclusion to provide a concise summary of the key findings, recommendations, and their broader implications. Emphasize the contribution your article makes to the field of CSE for students with disabilities.

We appreciate your dedication to this important topic and your willingness to make the necessary revisions.

Best regards,

Reviewer of  Journal of Sexes

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see our response to your comments below. We have italicized our response to your feedback and are so thankful for how it has strengthened our work. Thank you for your support of our academic writing.

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript titled "Enhancing Comprehensive Sexuality Education for Students with Disabilities: Insights from Ontario's Educational Framework" to the Journal of Sexes.

Thank you for your review of our manuscript. We really appreciate your time and feedback.

After a thorough review, it is evident that your article holds significant potential for contributing to the field of comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) for students with disabilities.

We are glad you see the value in our work.

However, from my point of view, several major revisions are required to ensure the clarity, depth, and coherence of your work. Below are the key areas that need attention before we can consider your manuscript for publication.

We have taken your suggestions seriously. We will answer below.

Abstract: While the abstract provides an overview of the article's topic, it needs to be more succinct and provide a clearer summary of the main findings and recommendations. It should also highlight the practical implications of the study.

We have amended the abstract as such. Thank you for the suggestions.

Introduction: The introduction should be expanded to clearly define the purpose and objectives of the study. Additionally, provide a more comprehensive literature review to establish the gaps in the existing research related to CSE for students with disabilities.

We have provided specific objectives and purposes. We have added more literature to our literature review to make it more comprehensive.

Specific Recommendations: In each section discussing challenges and recommendations for different disability categories, provide explicit and actionable recommendations that educators, policymakers, and researchers can implement. These recommendations should be detailed and supported by relevant evidence or examples.

We have gone through and ensured that our recommendations are specific for educators, researchers, and policymakers. We appreciate the suggestion to make our work more specific.

Global Relevance: Elaborate on the global significance of the insights and recommendations you provide. Discuss how these recommendations can be adapted or applied in various international contexts, acknowledging cultural differences and unique challenges.

We have added this into the conclusion of our article with specific examples and reference to relevant literature.

Citations and References: Thoroughly review the citations and references to ensure accuracy, consistency, and adherence to the journal's citation guidelines.

We have gone through our references and reviewed for consistency and accuracy.

Conclusion: Revise the conclusion to provide a concise summary of the key findings, recommendations, and their broader implications. Emphasize the contribution your article makes to the field of CSE for students with disabilities.

We have added this to the conclusion as a paragraph that summarizes the main findings and their implications, along with the importance of this work for advocating for the needs of students with disabilities in school-based sexuality education.

We appreciate your dedication to this important topic and your willingness to make the necessary revisions.

Best regards, Reviewer of Journal of Sexes

Thank you for your important comments that have greatly strengthened our work and writing.

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the authors for tackling such an important subject. Comprehensive Sexuality Education for students, with and without disabilities, needs to be encouraged, promoted and facilitated with research work such as yours. The manuscript was finely written, and I coudl see a good coherence between the different sections.

Altough the subject is important and the manuscript was readable, I feel like there were important information missing throughout the document. I have made several comments for the authors to enhance the rigor of their manuscript, hence promoting its credibility : 

- Clarification of the methods you used for your critical review, including the background of the team.

- Clarification of the subjects that are developed. Especially in the sections related to mental, physical, intellectual health and 2SLGBTQIA+ people, formulations were often written without enough detail, with frequent use of vague words such as "unique" and "barriers" and "more specialized training" without the subsequent explanations necessary for readers to have a good understanding of the authors' point and can act as agents of change after consulting your journal. These vague wordings diminish the credibility of the critical review, and I am certain that the authors have much deeper knowledge that they could incorporate into the review to increase its relevance.

- I encourage the authors to take caution, as coherence between the sections was variable, certain including recommandations or future research orientations, while there is a specific section dedicated to it at the end of the manuscript.

I am positive that this work will make a fine contribution to the scientific literature once those changes will be made.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our academic work. We appreciate and thank you for all your suggestions. The suggestions have strengthened our academic work. We have provided our response through italicized comments below your feedback below. 

I thank the authors for tackling such an important subject. Comprehensive Sexuality Education for students, with and without disabilities, needs to be encouraged, promoted and facilitated with research work such as yours. The manuscript was finely written, and I coudl see a good coherence between the different sections.

Although the subject is important and the manuscript was readable, I feel like there were important information missing throughout the document. I have made several comments for the authors to enhance the rigor of their manuscript, hence promoting its credibility : 

Thank you for these comments. We have taken them seriously and implemented the recommended changes.

Clarification of the methods you used for your critical review, including the background of the team.

We have added a section about methods and our team's positionality. 

-Clarification of the subjects that are developed. Especially in the sections related to mental, physical, intellectual health and 2SLGBTQIA+ people, formulations were often written without enough detail, with frequent use of vague words such as "unique" and "barriers" and "more specialized training" without the subsequent explanations necessary for readers to have a good understanding of the authors' point and can act as agents of change after consulting your journal. These vague wordings diminish the credibility of the critical review, and I am certain that the authors have much deeper knowledge that they could incorporate into the review to increase its relevance.

We have taken this comment very seriously and have aimed to be more specific in our writing. We have removed the terms, "specific" and "unique" where we can. 

• I encourage the authors to take caution, as coherence between the sections was variable, certain including recommandations or future research orientations, while there is a specific section dedicated to it at the end of the manuscript.

We have gone through the article to streamline the writing and ensure coherence. 

I am positive that this work will make a fine contribution to the scientific literature once those changes will be made.

We are so glad you see the value and appreciate the time you took to review our writing and academic research. Thank you again. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have done a very good job addressing the concerns of the reviewers. Of note is the strong and more in-depth incorporation of intersectional factors in this revised version of the manuscript. I look forward to this manuscript making a significant contribution to the literature. 

Reviewer 2 Report

My concerns have been met, i think that the article it´s suitable for publication.