Exploring Environmental and Geographical Factors Influencing the Spread of Infectious Diseases with Interactive Maps

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The contribution is interesting and deals with an important issue in the field of medical geography and the use of GIS technologies. The literature section can be improved. In addition, I recommend that the authors structure the paper better by putting the paragraphs in order with methodology, results and discussion. Therefore, I advise the author to dedicate a paragraph to this topic, inserting the ways in which these tools can help prevent future pandemics.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions made.

We have improved the literature review as suggested by the reviewer adding a new section on the use of interactive maps in scientific research, including a review of some of their limitations.

We also added a discussion on the impact of interactive maps in prevention of pandemics to the concluding section.

In regards to the structure of the paper, the paper is structured as a review of various interactive geovisualisation techniques, pointing out their relevance in the area of infectious disease control and describing examples of such applications. We believe that the current structure reflects this well and makes the paper more readable, as two other reviewers have also noted.

Reviewer 2 Report

This article presents a review of a variety of geographic information system techniques or mapping approaches that may help manage infectious diseases. The authors argue that interactive maps are an appropriate unifying framework that could coordinate various tasks to better communicate spatial epidemiological visualization and modeling results in a multidisciplinary team. I found this article interesting and well-written. I have the following comments for minor revisions.

First, it would be worth pointing out some issues related to the shortcoming of mapping. For example, there is a long history of work on the modifiable areal unit problem or others (e.g., classification of data, symbology, etc). It is unclear how these cartographical issues can also play a role in interactive mapping, and to what degree these issues have been addressed in this review.

Second, the case study or section 5 should be revised more substantially. Infectious diseases are a very broad topic. What types of infectious diseases are spreading in this area? Have the team members known the historical pattern of the spread of diseases? And do they have prior knowledge about the disease before the implementation of this technique? If a more systematic research design would be used such as before and after analysis, the results presented would be more robust and would help justify that interactive mapping is truly important for interdisciplinary work and data sharing.

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their appreciation of our paper and for the suggestions given.

As regards the first issue, we have added a new section which discusses the main frameworks for the understanding of mapping and its shortcomings, pointing the reader to the relevant literature on the use of interactive maps in scientific research.

As regards the second issues, we have substantially revised the presentation of the case study, adding the details suggested by the reviewer and further improving the presentation of the interactive tools.

Reviewer 3 Report

I want to thank the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Using Interactive Maps for Analysing Environmental and Geographical Factors that Affect the Spread of Infectious Diseases".

Overall, the paper flows well. in the introduction section, sufficient background information was given to help readers understand the context of the study. In addition, the research gap is clearly justified. 

Afterward, the authors reviewed exiting methods and issues in epidemiology. The review is comprehensive and issues were well-discussed. The authors then discussed the advantage of the application of interactive maps by presenting an example case study. 

In general, this study is not traditional empirical research that usually proposes and examines hypotheses. This paper is more likely to be a report that discusses the advantage of a method. This paper is well-written. My only recommandation is to expand the discussion of contributions made by this study in the ‘Conclusion' section. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their positive review.

We have added a summary of contributions to the conclusions section, as well as our perspective on how interactive maps could contribute towards the detection and management of disease outbreaks and the prevention of pandemics.

Reviewer 4 Report

 

The article raises an important issue related to the use of interactive maps in solving epidemiological problems related to the transmission of infectious diseases within a specially developed system enabling cooperation and coordination of the work of experts from various fields. The map is a very important element of this system, it is its core, being the most important part of the interface and, as the Authors note, it is the basis that enables the system users to perform various tasks. The article has a correct, logical structure, its goals are clearly outlined. The article is an interestingly written text with numerous references to literature, and its topic falls within the scope of the journal. The discussed issue is important for sustainable development and responds to the challenges faced by humans in dealing with the problem of the spread of infectious diseases in which geographical factors, including space and time and all associated things indicated in article, play an important role. The modern lifestyle of a human being, the increase in the mobility of societies, globalization phenomena, the way in which we influence the environment by interfering with them more and more, make the problem of spreading infectious diseases intensify, as well as the scale of this problem – nowadays these are not only local problems, but global. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown how big danger this could be. Geographical factors can play an important role in creating the conditions for the occurrence of specific diseases, as well as fostering the mutation of viruses that adapt to the new situation. A map becomes essential to analyze the situation, reduce the number of infections and manage the course of the epidemic. The Authors look at the meaning of the word map and the role it plays, and the tasks that can be performed with its help. They point to the potential of maps, and in particular interactive maps, for epidemiology, the importance of which is also explained in the paper. The map plays a special role as a tool and as a carrier of information exchange between multidisciplinary teams of experts fighting the spread of infectious diseases. It is difficult to imagine managing such a complex problem without the use of computer tools based on modern technologies.

The Authors show how interactive solutions can support the work of experts, but I miss some more general information on how to understand the term "interactive". Although it is a commonly used term, I think that it is also worth explaining this concept by giving even simple dictionary definitions. In this case, this word is important from the point of view of two meanings - it is about human interaction with the computer system, in the interface of which the map plays a special role, but also the interactions of users with other users within this system, which are also crucial for the case described in the paper. It is also worth giving examples of interactive tools that determine the potential of this type of map. These can be tools related to a specific system, given in the article as an example, but it can also be a broader view, taking into account the spectrum that was taken into account in this article. There are many examples of interactivity, such as brushing and linking, linked views, filtering, table sorting, pop-ups, rotate, zoom, pan, highlight, switch on / off, checkboxes, range sliders etc., which constitute the potential of interactive maps and what distinguishes them. I also think that this potential can be shown even more by referring to the DiBase concept and the concept of geovisualisation coined by MacEachren. The article mentions the geovisualization task with reference to literature, but the concept of geographic visualization is not explained. MacEachren's cube diagram shows the relationship between data, user and the level of interactivity with respect to two dimensions related to visualization and communication. I think that many recipients associate the map mainly with its communicative feature of conveying information, but I believe that there are definitely fewer people who see it as a tool. And here visualization in a highly interactive computer environment can be a tool for discovering new knowledge, it can support the exploration of large data sets, such as those referred to as big data. Interactive tools are simply indispensable, and the possibility of showing data using various visualization methods, which may also be accompanied by other representations, becomes crucial, as well as interactive features such as brushing and linking, which enable the observation of the same object, e.g. on a map and a chart (various related maps and charts from different perspectives facilitated by interactive functions, each chart has different properties, highlights a different feature of the data). Maps may also be accompanied by other forms of supporting visualizations (geomedia, photos, videos, animations, tables, audio files, etc.). Visualizations are not only created to communicate with a wider audience, but are also used by experts to create graphic images for their own use by which this new knowledge can be obtained. I think that even if the described system is more focused on improving communication between users, it is worth mentioning, taking into account the nature of the article, which is a fairly comprehensive look at the possibilities of using interactive maps - it will allow to show even more the potential of these maps in this field.

I have some doubts about Figure 1 and Figure 2, as they appear unchanged in another, earlier article written by the Authors. Perhaps it is not a real problem, because it is a simple screenshot of the system I do not believe it could be any conflict, but it may be worth considering showing other screenshots, or indicating the source publication in which they appeared for the first time (then it is a reference to the related article) or transform the existing figures to adapt them also to the nature of this publication and the description of interactive tools I have already suggested. Explanations in these figures (e.g. text with arrows on figure) can be added about what are the interactive elements (range slider on timeline, checkboxes, filtering results) and what parts of the data / information they relate to: time, space, patient, disease. Similarly, in the case of the tools in the second (actually first in order) figure (map, pop-ups on, highligthing, scalebar, pan tool - if exist).

I caught a small typo in the cited Author's name on line 156 (Andrienko).

To sum up I conclude that the article is interesting, with valuable content and topic that responds to the challenges of contemporary problems and can be published in current form after considering and analyzing the minor suggestions and comments reported in the review.

 

   

 

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their positive review and extensive comments. We found them very useful in revising our paper. We have now added a new section on the use of interactive maps in scientific research, which includes a discussion of the related work by MacEachren -- as requested by the reviewer -- as well as a review of the some of the limitations of interactive maps, particularly when used as part of the scientific visualization process. We trust that this section covers the suggestions made by the reviewer, taking into account the scope and limited length of our paper. 

Although we had the rights to the old figures 1 and 2, we have now replaced them as suggested. The small typo on line 156 has also been corrected.

Reviewer 5 Report

In this paper authors presented an interactive map for analyzing the spread of infectious diseases. Although the topic is interesting, authors should address the following issues:

1. Title should revised and it should be short

2. In the abstract, you should briefly discussed your interactive map and should conclude with your findings

3. At the end of the chapter, you should highlight your contributions by focusing the state-of art approaches.

4. Can you explain your map with a flow diagram? How your map works?

4. In the literature section, you should add tables or add paragraphs by addressing limitations of existing maps.

 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the suggestions made. Although the suggestions are fairly general, we have attempted to take them into account in revising our article, as follows: 

1- We have shortened the article's title, as suggested by the reviewer.
2- We have added a brief description of our interactive maps and findings to the abstract.
3- We have revised the conclusions section to highlight our contributions.
4- As the case studies were meant to illustrate general issues and challenges in interactive maps, we felt that a very detailed description of the interactive maps developed for those studies would detract from these aims. 
5- We have added a new section on the use of interactive maps in scientific research, including a review of the some of their limitations.

Round 2

Reviewer 5 Report

The authors significantly improve this draft, however, they should add flowchart or step by step block diagram with the details implementation of the map.

Author Response

We thank the reviewers for the suggestion and for their prompt replies.

We have now added a diagram describing the interactive map applications and their underlying framework. We have also added text to section 5 explaining the diagram.