Surgery Agreement Signature Authentication System for Mobile Health Care
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Even after the additional text I still don't see the big novelty and/or the big advantage of the proposed method. Chapter 2 nicely describes the many existing solutions - but then I miss a paragraph or a chapter describing the benefits of the new approach in relation to the established methods.
The use of "I" in a scientific paper is not really appropriate - pls change to passive voice instead.
There are some repititions in the text. For example, it is mentioned several times that biometrics measures are being used and what those measures include - e.g. two times in chapter 1 as well as in chapter 2.
In line 301 you write that you have implemented an improved DTW algorithm in the paper - but I guess you should write that you have implemented it in your method. The paper only describes what you have done and how, and is not an implementation as such.
Figures 11 and 12 (and 13) are not really very spectacular - maybe you should consider putting them side by side in order to not waste space for the paper. Figures 14 and 15 show very disturbing reflections - maybe you take better image or simply show a screen shot (which would be the preferred solution).
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Even after the additional text I still don't see the big novelty and/or the big advantage of the proposed method. Chapter 2 nicely describes the many existing solutions - but then I miss a paragraph or a chapter describing the benefits of the new approach in relation to the established methods.
-----
Reply -----
-----
Thank you for reviewing my paper in detail and giving me an appropriate comment. The readability has been enhanced by creating a section explaining the benefit of this new approach for the existing method. The manuscript has been proofread by a native English speaker to correct the contextual or grammatical/spelling errors so that I respectfully would like to request a re-review if possible. The changes or additions made in the paper are being highlighted in red.
Add)
Until recently, hospital patients or their guardians were required to sign a surgery consent form one by one to receive a surgical procedure but hospitals are now attempting to digitalize such a process to prevent its loss or delayed confirmation. Also, as this consent form becomes an important legal evidence for proving when the signature was entered, such an effort is necessary in the occasional cases when the signature was entered after the procedure.
Thus, a surgery consent (agreement) signature authentication system has been proposed in this paper specifically for the mobile health care field. The proposed electronic system can replace all the paper forms used at the hospitals, including surgery/private information collection agreement forms. The electronic forms can be checked and signed on a smartphone or tablet PC used by the hospital and since they are quite similar to a paper form, the signature will be accepted even if it deviates from the input window. They are then delivered to the operating room immediately after being authenticated so that the possibility of loss/misplacement/delay will be avoided. It is not necessary to scan these forms and those patients with mobility difficulties can receive explanations while checking them on a tablet PC directly. One of the special advantages of the proposed system is that, compared to the existing systems [1,2] its signature authentication algorithm is able to recognize the signature instantly and intelligently determines whether it has been entered by the patient in person, preventing the possibility of unauthorized signing by a third party. Additionally, the system does not allow the time of signing to be altered in any way that it can be used for digital forensics. In the paper, an effort was made to improve the vulnerabilities of the existing systems and a successful result was obtained in the compatibility test.
The use of "I" in a scientific paper is not really appropriate - pls change to passive voice instead.
-----
Reply -----
-----
Thank you for your comment. The content has been converted into a passive form by avoiding the use of “I” to enhance the readability. The changes made are being highlighted in red.
Changes)
1) Among these methods, the focus was laid on the analysis method used for recognizing the signatures.
2) Thus, instead of a popular existing authentication method that uses a DTW method, an attempt was made to test a new signature recognition method by applying the segmental units comparison and Bag of Word methods, followed by its comparison with the DTW method.
3) A database that manages the signature information will be constructed by developing a signature-input application to generate an ideal comparison value through sufficient learning time and then acquiring a sample signature for authentication purpose through three steps.
4) In this case, the objective was to find the comparison values by performing segment matching for each section after creating a graph by calculating the displacement values at regular intervals for the signature's X and Y coordinates and designating three dominant peaks P1, P2, and P3 (i.e., Partitioning Peak Points: PPP) [32].
5) First, the differences in these numbers were calculated by comparing them for each signature. Next, the differences in the time zones where peaks and valleys had been generated were compared. Based on the results obtained from these two steps, it was possible to determine the concordance rates (%).
6) This method was originally used for image processing which analyzed the spatial proportion of a certain shape or picture in a space, but in this research, the same method was employed for recognizing a signature by distinguishing the spaces as an empty part (without any stroke) or a black part (with a stroke) [33].
7) Thus, in this research, an improved DTW algorithm where both a basic DTW algorithm and the characteristics such as signing speed, etc. were used along with the distance measuring method considering angular variations was implemented.
8) As a result, the precision level was higher than the one obtained from a single-algorithm analysis, which meant that the recognition rates would vary depending on the form of the signature and the algorithm used.
There are some repititions in the text. For example, it is mentioned several times that biometrics measures are being used and what those measures include - e.g. two times in chapter 1 as well as in chapter 2.
-----
Reply -----
-----
I appreciate your comment. The errors in the manuscript have been corrected through revision to enhance readability. The changes made are being highlighted in red as in the following.
In line 301 you write that you have implemented an improved DTW algorithm in the paper - but I guess you should write that you have implemented it in your method. The paper only describes what you have done and how, and is not an implementation as such.
-----
Reply -----
-----
Thank you for your appropriate comment. An effort was put into the manuscript to make it more expressive while discussing it with a native speaker.
Add)
One of the special advantages of the proposed system is that, compared to the existing systems [4, 5], a DTW and several other algorithms have been applied in combination with a variety of methods to instantly and intelligently recognize the authenticity of a signature to prevent any unauthorized signing by a third party.
Figures 11 and 12 (and 13) are not really very spectacular - maybe you should consider putting them side by side in order to not waste space for the paper. Figures 14 and 15 show very disturbing reflections - maybe you take better image or simply show a screen shot (which would be the preferred solution).
-----
Reply -----
-----
Your comment is highly appreciated. Fig. 11, 12, and 13 show the surgery consent forms that can be checked on a tablet PC so that their sizes may not fit with the other types of smart devices including smartphones. Considering that you have pointed out such a problem, the sizes have been adjusted adequately to utilize the empty spaces effectively. Meanwhile, Fig. 14 and 15 show the actual UI having an image of signature that has been taken from different angles.
Following the reviewer’s view, some of the picture have been removed while retaking the part of the remaining pictures to make some changes. Thus, I respectfully request a re-review if possible. Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper deals about signature authenication systems for mobile health care.
The paper is easy to read, and flows naturally in the text. However, some clarifications can be made, mainly according to the introduction.
On row 43 you refer to "the complex ones". What is complex? What is the characteristic of those complex ones?
You have a very short paragraph, rows 42-45. and it seems that those rows are loosely coupled to the rest of the introduction.
You should not present results in the introductory section, as on row 49 etc. If it is results of another study you have to make a reference to this. Moreover, you need to clarify what kind of results you refer to, results of what?
You should not present methodological texts in the introduction, as on rows 60-61, rows 63-66 and rows 73-75.
In the introduction you refer to other research studies, but without any references. So you have to include references, for example on row 62-63.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper deals about signature authenication systems for mobile health care.
The paper is easy to read, and flows naturally in the text. However, some clarifications can be made, mainly according to the introduction.
-----
Reply -----
-----
First of all, thank you for reviewing my paper and giving me an appropriate comment. Much effort was made to make the introduction section clearer and enhance readability. In this regard, I respectfully request for re-review if possible. Some of the content have been moved to another section following your point, highlighting them in yellow.
Add) This paper is organized as follows: Chapter 2 discusses some of the related research works followed by the discussion on the method of signature data extraction in Chapter 3. Then, Chapter 4 deals with “Analysis of Signature Data whereas Chapter 5 reveals the prototype while discussing about system implementation and related considerations. Meanwhile, Chapter 6 explains the significance of the proposed system in comparison to the other research works along with interesting debates. Finally, Chapter 7 concludes the research.
On row 43 you refer to "the complex ones". What is complex? What is the characteristic of those complex ones?
-----
Reply -----
-----
The phrase “complex ones” mentioned here refers to all sorts of authentications such as verifying oneself, validating the location information, address of a credit card user, and/or a CVC number, similar to the ones that are being used for the current electronic payment systems. Signature is a traditional tool of confirming one’s own intention and the signatures written with an electronic pen are also being used to authenticate a person at the court currently. A variety of technologies are available for authenticating the signatures and especially for the electronic signatures, a special algorithm is being used along with the handwriting forms stored in the existing database.
You have a very short paragraph, rows 42-45. and it seems that those rows are loosely coupled to the rest of the introduction.
-----
Reply -----
-----
The phrase “complex ones” mentioned here refers to all sorts of authentications such as verifying oneself, validating the location information, address of a credit card user, and/or a CVC number, similar to the ones that are being used for the current electronic payment systems. Signature is a traditional tool of confirming one’s own intention and the signatures written with an electronic pen are also being used to authenticate a person at the court currently. A variety of technologies are available for authenticating the signatures and especially for the electronic signatures, a special algorithm is being used along with the handwriting forms stored in the existing database.
You should not present results in the introductory section, as on row 49 etc. If it is results of another study you have to make a reference to this. Moreover, you need to clarify what kind of results you refer to, results of what?
-----
Reply -----
-----
I appreciate your comment. An effort was made to make the contextual relations between units and sections while proofreading the paper with a native speaker. The manuscript has been reviewed carefully several times to correct any possible errors or citing omissions. The changes and additions made are being highlighted in Green.
You should not present methodological texts in the introduction, as on rows 60-61, rows 63-66 and rows 73-75.
-----
Reply -----
-----
Thank you for your appropriate comment. A section “Signature Data Extraction” has been newly created and at the same time, the sources of the cited literatures has been made clearer. Thus, as this paper presents a new meaning that is different from the existing research works, I’d like to request a re-review if possible.
In the introduction you refer to other research studies, but without any references. So you have to include references, for example on row 62-63.
-----
Reply -----
-----
Your comment is deeply appreciated. The citing omissions have been corrected and all the changes made in the paper are being highlighted in red. If it’s allowed, I’d appreciate if you will review my paper again.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
