Interactive Maps of Social Problems and Security Threats Illustrated with an Example of Solutions Currently Used in Upper Silesia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting study and a good effort in looking at dynamic mapping of crime data. I have a few concerns on the paper. First, your literature review ends around 1990. There has been a significant amount of research in the spatiality of crime and crime mapping since 1990. I suggest you review the current literature on crime mapping and see if newer studies influence your research.
Second, I would be interested in seeing how effective the mapping system you describe is in regards to predicting crime patterns, deterring crime or explaining crime patterns. This paper is very descriptive at the moment. I would also be interested in understanding the effectiveness of crowd sourcing crime data. Are there barriers to reporting crime data? are there patterns to inaccurate reports?
I also think you should give the paper one more review for readability/style/grammar... Most of the paper reads fine, but some sections are confusing and some of your word choices are awkward.
Overall, I think this is an interesting idea. I would focus the research questions a bit more and then work to add some rigor to your discussions and conclusions
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable substantive comments.
We provide a list of corrections in the article:
- bibliography and substantive references have been updated to the latest literature (reflecting newer solutions), especially items indexed in SOCPUS / WOS
- the methodological part and introduction have been expanded to include the current state of research regarding the discussed issues, aims and methodological assumptions of the article
- the presentation of the discussed solutions has been supplemented with an analysis of effectiveness in the perspective of social policy and public security, as well as evaluation postulates in this respect
- the text has been edited and corrected by an experienced native speaker. The terminology has been improved and clarified.
- discussions and conclusions chapters have been expanded to include specific conclusions and comments resulting from the analysis of the discussed material. The context of the discussed solutions has been supplemented.
- section on future research and policy implications has been added. It is a part of the conclusion.
All changes are marked in color.
Respects, Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents an interesting discussion around security mapping in Poland. However, I feel it requires a number of substantial improvements before it can be made publishable.
What are the overall aims and objectives/research questions? These must be made clear at the outset of the paper and within the introduction. It would be useful to set this alongside a discussion of the context of this paper. The literature review is more a chronology of studies around crime mapping with three case studies. This should outline the ley literature relevant to the aims and objectives, supporting a discussion of why this study is important/new, the gaps it tries to address and what is novel or new about this research. The terminology used is vague throughout this paper and frequently interchangeable. For example, crime and security (and the mapping of each) are potentially very different. This is just one example of vague terminology. When discussing maps, there needs to be clear distinctions between the creation of maps (from paper/point maps) to GIS digital maps, to interactive maps. There also is confusion between the use of a tool, and indeed when a map is part of a process (for example within organisations making decisions about crime/safety/security – which are all used interchangeably Case study area and data – it would be helpful if clear discussion of both the case study area, and the data used in that study area were provided in a single section. Potentially this should be before, or just after, the methodology section The methodology is unclear. What is the justification for using secondary data analysis? What exactly was done (important for identifying limitations, enabling replication and justifying this approach). The findings needs a clear structure – linked back to the original research questions of this paper. They could be better organised and linked to the focus of the paper The focus is not clear, for example - is the focus of this paper about (i) the utility of interactive security maps in Poland, (ii) the process of decision making by organisations who might use these maps (or iii something else). There needs to be clear discussion of the findings in relation to the previous literature (does this support previous material, what is knew, what are the limitations of this study) A section on future research and policy implications would be helpful. This could be part of the conclusion.Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable substantive comments.
We provide a list of corrections in the article:
- bibliography and substantive references have been updated to the latest literature (reflecting newer solutions), especially items indexed in SOCPUS / WOS
- the methodological part and introduction have been expanded to include the current state of research regarding the discussed issues, aims and methodological assumptions of the article
- the presentation of the discussed solutions has been supplemented with an analysis of effectiveness in the perspective of social policy and public security, as well as evaluation postulates in this respect
- the text has been edited and corrected by an experienced native speaker. The terminology has been improved and clarified.
- discussions and conclusions chapters have been expanded to include specific conclusions and comments resulting from the analysis of the discussed material. The context of the discussed solutions has been supplemented.
- section on future research and policy implications has been added. It is a part of the conclusion.
All changes are marked in color.
Respects, Authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall, the revised version shows significant improvements. I understand the purpose of the paper, the research is better grounded in the vast literature on crime analysis, the methods are appropriate and the conclusions are logical and easily understood. Congratulations!
Reviewer 2 Report
I think this paper is substantially improved from the original submission.
There may be a need to check length, and use of full author names in discussing some of history of 'security mapping' as per journal guidelines
This paper flows better and many of the original questions and uncertainties I had have been answered and or made clear.
