Interactive Maps for the Production of Knowledge and the Promotion of Participation from the Perspective of Communication, Journalism, and Digital Humanities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a theoretical framework for the use of interactive maps in order to produce knowledge and promote  political participation. Some phrases are too long and difficult to perceive, these sections need to be rewritten by breaking in smaller sentences. A limitation of the research as presented in this paper, is the lack of information about the use of the apps by citizens in order to prove the merit of the proposed theoretical framework.

The title must be rephrased as “production of participation” is not a valid phrase. Promotion of participation as stated in line27 is more appropriate.

Lines 13 – 14: these statements are not self proved and may be doubted. They should be omitted or rephrased.

Line 33: what are “modern states”? This phrase is vague

Lines 38 -39: please rephrase – difficult to understand

Lines 40 -41: Why “would” is used? It is not true?

Table 1: Title missing in second column

Line 249 -250 The term interactive map does not include data entry by the users. A different term must be adopted or a definition based on the authors’ vision must be added.

Line 251-252: “For this, it is necessary to consider …” – please rephrase

Line 260: what is “node of the Internet”?

Line 258 – 264 / 264 -269/ 288 – 293/424 - 428: too long sentence – difficult to follow

Line 277: What is “Galileo conjecture”?

Line 299: what is information with “human quality”?

Line 337 – 338: a map due to its nature e.g. use of graphical elements has always been different from a ‘traditional analogue linear reading system”. As a result this is not done because of the characteristics proposed by the authors. The user experience should be emphasized as this is improved by the elements you propose e.g. interactivity, multimediality etc

Line 372/430: link to application should be provided for a better understanding

Line 423: isn’t “influencing politics” against your pluralization and egalitarianism scope?

 

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions. Here are the changes made:

• Some phrases are too long and difficult to perceive, these sections need to be rewritten by breaking in smaller sentences. Line 258 – 264 / 264 -269/ 288 – 293/424 - 428: too long sentence – difficult to follow.
• All these paragraphs have been rewritten.
• A limitation of the research as presented in this paper, is the lack of information about the use of the apps by citizens in order to prove the merit of the proposed theoretical framework.
• We have added information on conclusions, on lines 594-602.
• The title must be rephrased as “production of participation” is not a valid phrase. Promotion of participation as stated in line 27 is more appropriate.:
• We have changed the title following this suggestion.
• Lines 13 – 14: these statements are not self proved and may be doubted. They should be omitted or rephrased:
• We have eliminated the first sentence and have modified the wording of the next.
• Line 33: what are “modern states”? This phrase is vague:
• We have removed the word “modern”.
• Lines 38 -39: please rephrase – difficult to understand:
• We have changed the wording and punctuation.
• Lines 40 -41: Why “would” is used? It is not true?:
• We have changed the tense of the verbs in both cases.
• Table 1: Title missing in second columna:
• We have added titles in both columns.
• Line 249 -250 The term interactive map does not include data entry by the users. A different term must be adopted or a definition based on the authors’ vision must be added.
• The title of the article already talks about interactive maps (“Interactive maps for the production of knowledge and the promotion of participation...”), as well as the abstract, the methodology (“... the interactive maps integrated into the Infoparticipa Map and the Plural Citizenship web platforms ...”), etc. To change this approach in point 4.1 would make the text less coherent. On the other hand, it is accepted that public participation requires interactivity, for example in the article about interactivity by J. Heesen, in the Encyclopedia of Applied Ethics (Second Edition), 2012: "Interactivity allows for active involvement of individuals on the content level of the communication process ".
• Line 251-252: “For this, it is necessary to consider …” – please rephrase:
• We have changed the sentence.
• Line 260: what is “node of the Internet”?
• We have clarified the idea and added a brief explanation.
• Line 277: What is “Galileo conjecture”?:
• The Galileo conjecture is explained on lines 306-338:  “In 2008, the historian Mercedes Vilanova formulated the Galileo conjecture in these terms: ‘History will be explained as a network of relationships, and the fragmented narratives that began in prehistory will defeat the state and universal histories that were possible as a result of writing’ [66]. In the same article, the author states that the digital revolution will make this process inevitable and uncontrollable, and under a state of constant renewal, making the official memories, that is, the social discourses dominant until now, cease to be the absolute referents”.
• Line 299: what is information with “human quality”?
• New explanation on lines 353-356.
• Line 337 – 338: a map due to its nature e.g. use of graphical elements has always been different from a ‘traditional analogue linear reading system”. As a result this is not done because of the characteristics proposed by the authors. The user experience should be emphasized as this is improved by the elements you propose e.g. interactivity, multimediality etc.
• We have changed this sentence.
• Line 372/430: link to application should be provided for a better understanding:
• links on lines 248 and 452.
• Line 423: isn’t “influencing politics” against your pluralization and egalitarianism scope? Answer:
• No, on the contrary, influence in politics must contribute to making public institutions more plural and egalitarian.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors, 

this was one of the best papers I have read/reviewed in quite some time, BUT I actually do not understand, why you selected IJGI for your publication? I see you submit it to the PPGIS special issue, but still, IJGI is a more technical journal, and your paper seems to me more Social Science/Digital Humanities like...

Nevertheless, I miss papers like yours in IJGI, as I am also more softGIS person, so really enjoyed reading it, it has a very strong theoretical/literature background, although most of your sources are written in Spanish - maybe you can look also at some literature in English about geoparticipation and/or PPGIS? This would nicely expand the introduction part....

I was also wondering whether you thought about how (geo)participation can be measured - Cube systems (Fung, etc.) or Indexes - Index of Geoparticipation, etc?

All in all, I liked the paper, some minor English edits can be done (but I am not a native speaker). 

Good luck with your research!

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions. 

1. Most of your sources are written in Spanish - maybe you can look also at some literature in English about geoparticipation and/or PPGIS? This would nicely expand the introduction part....:

lines 185-190. We have added a paragraph about PPGIS and geopartipation on lines 196-204 whit 13 new references.

2. I was also wondering whether you thought about how (geo)participation can be measured - Cube systems (Fung, etc.) or Indexes - Index of Geoparticipation, etc?

In this work we have established a theoretical model. We have not addressed the systems for measuring participation. Although it is a crucial issue, we think that for this article it is a tangential question that should not be treated marginally.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear colleagues, 

thank you for your contribution "interactive maps for the production of knowledge from the perspective of communication, journalism and digital humanities". 

The paper is easy to read and comprehensible. It becomes clear that maps play an important role for knowledge creation, but the reason for this is not explicitely highlighted. 

When introducing objectives and methods in chapter 3, and when highlighting with examples, some crucial initiatives like OpenStreetMap or Geonames are missing. These initiatives make use of public participation and are the source for many knowledge transmitting portals. Thus it is a decentralized approach, as argued in your paper. 

The theoretical model in chapter 4 sounds reasonable. The method is fine, as you bring the theoretical model into your practical examples. 

The given examples are not that clear and powerful. But it was possible to evaluate the theoretical approach. 

Thank you...

 

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions.

1. It becomes clear that maps play an important role for knowledge creation, but the reason for this is not explicitely highlighted.

The article shows: “the possibilities of interactive maps as tools to promote political participation and as instruments for the construction of social knowledge in a collaborative, participatory, networked way” (abstract, lines 25-27). And in the conclusion of the article: “We highlight the importance of creating procedures that allow the criteria with which interactive maps are constructed to be subverted so that they do not reproduce traditional hierarchical systems” (lines 569-571). We explore these possibilities in the case-study’s (chapter 5), but we explain a trend, not a fully developed current reality. With this article we want to make a theoretical contribution to making this development possible in the future.

2. When introducing objectives and methods in chapter 3, and when highlighting with examples, some crucial initiatives like OpenStreetMap or Geonames are missing. These initiatives make use of public participation and are the source for many knowledge transmitting portals. Thus it is a decentralized approach, as argued in your paper.

We have introduced these cases in 2.2, on lines 216-223 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Αuthors have revised the paper as suggested. 

Please add the url of the second application in Line 432. The application should be referenced by its original name e.g. Ciutadania Plural.

Authors contribution should be revised with the authors names.

Author Response

Thank you for your review and your suggestions.

- We have added the URL of Ciutadania Plural in lines 432 and 233.

- We have changed the names of the applications to the original ones throughout the text. We have also included the English translation of their names in the abstract and the induction for a better understanding of the content.

- We have completed the authors contributions section.