Slap a Label on It—Civic Registration Categories for (Non)Citizens and the Digital Promise

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting article that delves into the ongoing issues regarding citizenship in the context of biopolitics aligned with the rapid advancement of technology. Given the topic of the special issue, I don't have any complain about the contents, structure, and quality of this article. It would be more great that the point the author describes is not limited in the context of Netherlands or EU, though. 

However, the revision is absolutely needed to address the issues of citation style. I reckon that the author is not familiar with the citation style of Social Science or other MDPI Journals. Please see the guideline for citations, references, and  (foot)note this journal offers, and also check other published works in this journal.

Also, I found some parts the author did not write its original resource (e.g., p. 9 the line, "in the same way, researchers..."). I don't think that it's on purpose, but the author must revise those parts to address potential ethical issues. 

In addition, as a minor suggestion that the lines of abstract need to be polished. I can follow the points and nuances the author strives to convey, but the sentences are too long and complicated. Maybe the abstract can be polished in ways that each line conveys one clear and specific idea so as to help (potential) readers easily follow the point the author makes. 

As another minor suggestion for the part of introduction, the author can add one or two paragraph(s) about the issues of citizenship before delving into 'several questions'.  This revision can enhance the logical flow of the whole introduction and also strengthen why the questions the author pose are important. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I don't find any major issue regarding the quality of English. A minor issue exists in the abstract, but it's about the writing style the author uses.  

Author Response

For research article:

Slap a label on it. Civic registration categories for (non)citizens and the digital promise.

 

Response to Reviewers Comments
Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted (in yellow) in the re-submitted file.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments : 1. It is an interesting article that delves into the ongoing issues regarding citizenship in the context of biopolitics aligned with the rapid advancement of technology. Given the topic of the special issue, I don't have any complain about the contents, structure, and quality of this article. It would be more great that the point the author describes is not limited in the context of Netherlands or EU, though.  2.However, the revision is absolutely needed to address the issues of citation style. I reckon that the author is not familiar with the citation style of Social Science or other MDPI Journals. Please see the guideline for citations, references, and  (foot)note this journal offers, and also check other published works in this journal. 3.Also, I found some parts the author did not write its original resource (e.g., p. 9 the line, "in the same way, researchers..."). I don't think that it's on purpose, but the author must revise those parts to address potential ethical issues.  4.In addition, as a minor suggestion that the lines of abstract need to be polished. I can follow the points and nuances the author strives to convey, but the sentences are too long and complicated. Maybe the abstract can be polished in ways that each line conveys one clear and specific idea so as to help (potential) readers easily follow the point the author makes.  5.As another minor suggestion for the part of introduction, the author can add one or two paragraph(s) about the issues of citizenship before delving into 'several questions'. This revision can enhance the logical flow of the whole introduction and also strengthen why the questions the author pose are important. Comments on the Quality of English Language 6.I don't find any major issue regarding the quality of English. A minor issue exists in the abstract, but it's about the writing style the author uses.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. It is an ethnographical study which centers the experience and knowledge of the participants. Therefore, it focuses on the Netherlands with some references in the EU.
Response 2: I agree. I have, accordingly, modified the References.
Response 3: I agree. I have, accordingly, revised the text to reflect this point.
Response 4: Agree. I have, accordingly, revised the abstract.
Response 5: I have, accordingly, included an additional paragraph to emphasize this point.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that you noted the imperative need for Western states to use digitization technology to help states be able "to be open in the face of migration without implicitly reproducing the colonial ethos" (p. 9).

Among other thing I suggest you:

1. To exemplify not only the cases from the Netherlands, but also from other western states, to better identify the "Age of Surveillance Capitalism” and to „fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power" (Zuboff, Shoshana).

2. To have an interdisciplinary approach, so as not to remain restricted to a sociological evaluation only.

3. To provide the reader with more documentary information about the genesis of capitalist neoliberalism as perceived by sociologists, political scientists, and historians today. In other words, it would be useful for the reader to learn more about the global inequalities produced by these neoliberalisms, about the registration systems of some states both of their own citizens and of migrants and stateless persons, who are often categorized according to ethnic, racial and religious, and whose manifestations are related - as yourself stated - "to a politics of representation with ties to colonialism complicating diversity in new ways".

I am confident that if you take into account these collegial suggestions as well, you will succeed in composing a reference paper. Success.

 

Author Response

For research article:

Slap a label on it. Civic registration categories for (non)citizens and the digital promise.

 

Response to Reviewers Comments
Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions highlighted (in yellow) in the re-submitted file.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors Comments : I appreciate that you noted the imperative need for Western states to use digitization technology to help states be able "to be open in the face of migration without implicitly reproducing the colonial ethos" (p. 9). Among other thing I suggest you: 1. To exemplify not only the cases from the Netherlands, but also from other western states, to better identify the "Age of Surveillance Capitalism” and to „fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power" (Zuboff, Shoshana). 2. To have an interdisciplinary approach, so as not to remain restricted to a sociological evaluation only. 3. To provide the reader with more documentary information about the genesis of capitalist neoliberalism as perceived by sociologists, political scientists, and historians today. In other words, it would be useful for the reader to learn more about the global inequalities produced by these neoliberalisms, about the registration systems of some states both of their own citizens and of migrants and stateless persons, who are often categorized according to ethnic, racial and religious, and whose manifestations are related - as yourself stated - "to a politics of representation with ties to colonialism complicating diversity in new ways". I am confident that if you take into account these collegial suggestions as well, you will succeed in composing a reference paper. Success.     Response 1,2,3: Thank you for your valuable comments. I agree with your observations and have made the necessary adjustments (p.6, lines 223-256). Specifically, I have included additional contextual information on current policies in other Western countries to address the first point. However, this study primarily focuses on the Netherlands, based on fieldwork conducted in the city of Amsterdam. Where relevant, comparisons have been drawn with the digitalisation of governance in other Western European states to better elucidate the effects of automated technology on predicting human behaviour. Regarding your second comment, I understand its importance. This study is ethnographic in nature, centring on the experiences and knowledge of participants during the fieldwork. The analysis is approached from a sociological perspective, with insights from the anthropology of technology and critical theory. Lastly, in response to the third comment, I have added further information on the institutionalised political and social structures of Western European states, particularly in relation to their often problematic treatment of 'race' and diversity.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, many issues I previously posed are addressed, so I think that this piece goes to the next step for the publication after addressing some minor issues such as  the in-text citation style and footnote.

1. I believe that this journal uses the footnote style different from those the author uses.

2. That is same as the in-text citation. just write last name without comma like (Foucault 2009). 

3. In abstract, the author needs to revise the sentence "despite...". it looks like incomplete sentence, and cannot understand what message the author wants to convey. Also, is the question mark in the last sentence a rhetorical intention? I don't think it is necessary.

 

Author Response

For research article:

Slap a label on it. Civic registration categories for (non)citizens and the digital promise.

 

Response to Reviewers Comments
Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review once again this manuscript. Please find my detailed responses below and in the re-submitted file.
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Comments : 1. I believe that this journal uses the footnote style different from those the author uses. 2. That is same as the in-text citation. just write last name without comma like (Foucault 2009).  3. In abstract, the author needs to revise the sentence "despite...". it looks like incomplete sentence, and cannot understand what message the author wants to convey. Also, is the question mark in the last sentence a rhetorical intention? I don't think it is necessary.
Response 1,2: Thank you for pointing this out. I have accordingly edited the text according to instructions.
And
Response 3: Thank you very much for noticing this. I have, accordingly, revised the abstract.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf