Slap a Label on It—Civic Registration Categories for (Non)Citizens and the Digital Promise
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt 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 LanguageI 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 AuthorsI 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. |
|||||
|
|||||
|
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, 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