CerMapp: A Cloud-Based Geospatial Prototype for National Wildlife Disease Surveillance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes a mobile app, CerMapp, aimed at facilitating the collection of geospatial data for wildlife. Overall, the manuscript does a good job of introducing the app and its importance; however, I would like to see more on the development process in the methods section. For instance, how were the data fields selected? Did they have any input from stakeholders? Etc. 

More care also needs to be taken to ensure repetitive pieces of text are removed. In several places, the authors repeat themselves, and it becomes tedious for the readers. 

Lastly, I would recommend carefully considering the amount of detail provided for the anaplasma example. For instance, a lot of text is devoted to describing the GEE pipeline, even though this is post-data collection and has very little to do with the CerMapp app. I think the example is a nice addition, but more time should be spent on how the app contributed to the study (e.g., who collected data? How is CerMapp different from how data was previously collected on Anaplasma? Etc.)

I have provided further comments in the attached PDF. With these edits, I believe the manuscript highlights how simple technical solutions can be used to meet the need for better geospatial data for wildlife, and will be a valuable contribution to the journal.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor(s),

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a final draft of our manuscript titled “CerMapp: Geospatial Cloud-Based Surveillance of Wildlife Diseases. A Prototype for a possible National-Scale Monitoring under Geomatics and One Health Principles” to IJGI.

We appreciate the effort that you and reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions pointed by editor. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns. In red reviewers’ comments, in blue authors’ answers/changes.

[Reviewer #1]

1. The manuscript describes a mobile app, CerMapp, aimed at facilitating the collection of geospatial data for wildlife. Overall, the manuscript does a good job of introducing the app and its importance; however, I would like to see more on the development process in the methods section. For instance, how were the data fields selected? Did they have any input from stakeholders? Etc.
2. Thank you so much for your helpful suggestion. The reviewer is right, the manuscript does describe what data fields were included in CerMapp, but it does not describe how or why those specific fields were selected, nor does it mention any input from stakeholders in the development process. Therefore to accomplish this task and to fully address the reviewer’s question, we have added within Methods section (2.1.2 Form Design) the rationale behind the field selection and any stakeholder involvement. Here it is the text added: “The selection of data fields for the CerMapp form was driven by the requirement to collect essential metadata that aligns with the standardized reporting protocols of the National Animal Disease Information System (SIMAN) and fulfills the minimum criteria for rigorous geospatial analysis. Initial field selections were based on the operational needs and data requirements identified by the National Reference Center for Wildlife Diseases (CeRMAS). These preliminary fields were then refined through consultations with key stakeholder groups, including veterinarians from the Aosta Valley Regional Health Authority (AUSL) and officers from the Regional Forest Corp (CFV). Their feedback, gathered via informal workshops, was instrumental in ensuring the form's practicality and relevance for field use, leading to the inclusion of fields for photographic documentation and manual geolocation to accommodate challenging field conditions."

 

2. More care also needs to be taken to ensure repetitive pieces of text are removed. In several places, the authors repeat themselves, and it becomes tedious for the readers.
3. The reviewer is totally right we have reformulated the text in order top avoid repetion especially concerning ESRI ArcGIS suervy which is mentioned several times. Please see into the revised manuscript.

 

3. Lastly, I would recommend carefully considering the amount of detail provided for the anaplasma example. For instance, a lot of text is devoted to describing the GEE pipeline, even though this is post-data collection and has very little to do with the CerMapp app. I think the example is a nice addition, but more time should be spent on how the app contributed to the study (e.g., who collected data? How is CerMapp different from how data was previously collected on Anaplasma? Etc.)
4. We sincerely thank the Reviewer for this insightful and constructive comment. We agree entirely that the Anaplasma example should primarily serve to highlight the utility of the CerMapp application itself, rather than the details of a subsequent analysis pipeline.

 

In direct response to your feedback, we have implemented significant revisions to the manuscript, which we believe have substantially strengthened it. The key changes are as follows:

 

Drastic Reduction of GEE Pipeline Details: As suggested, we have radically shortened Section 2.3 ("Adoption of CerMapp Data for Geospatial Analysis in Google Earth Engine"). The highly technical, step-by-step description of the processing pipeline and K-means clustering has been replaced with a concise, high-level summary of the procedure. The focus has been shifted from the "how" of the analysis to the "what" and "why"—i.e., demonstrating a potential use-case for the data collected by the app. The full code remains available in the appendix for transparency.

 

New Section on the Case Study and CerMapp's Role: We have added a new subsection, "2.4 Case Study: Anaplasma spp. Surveillance", to the Methods. This new section directly addresses the specific points you raised:

 

Who collected the data? It now explicitly states that the data were collected by veterinarians and Forest Corp personnel using CerMapp during their routine activities.

 

How is CerMapp different? It now includes a clear "before-and-after" comparison, explicitly describing the limitations of the previous data collection methods (paper forms, non-standardized digital reports prone to transcription errors and geolocation inaccuracies) and contrasting them with the standardized, immediate, and geospatially-enabled workflow enabled by CerMapp.

 

Reframed Discussion: The discussion of the Anaplasma example in the Results and Discussion sections has been reframed to continuously link the findings back to the core innovation—the CerMapp app. We now explicitly state that the primary contribution of the case study is to demonstrate how the app creates a high-quality, analysis-ready dataset that facilitates integrated geospatial studies which were previously more difficult to perform.

 

We are confident that these modifications have successfully shifted the focus onto the app's contribution, as you recommended, and have made the example a more effective illustration of CerMapp's practical value. Thank you again for this excellent suggestion, which has greatly improved our manuscript. Please see into the text the changes performed.

4. I have provided further comments in the attached PDF. With these edits, I believe the manuscript highlights how simple technical solutions can be used to meet the need for better geospatial data for wildlife, and will be a valuable contribution to the journal.
5. We thank the Reviewer for their final encouraging comment and for the additional, detailed feedback provided in the attached PDF. We are very pleased that the core message of the manuscript showcasing how simple technical solutions can meet the pressing need for better geospatial data in wildlife management is now clearly communicated. Regarding the specific comments in the PDF, we have carefully reviewed each one and have incorporated all suggested edits into the manuscript. These included valuable corrections to grammar, phrasing, and further improvements to clarity and conciseness, all of which have undoubtedly enhanced the quality of the final text. We are deeply grateful for the Reviewer's time and insightful contributions throughout the review process. Their constructive criticism has been instrumental in shaping this work, and we hope the manuscript is now significantly stronger and ready to be a valuable contribution to the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

A very interesting manuscript and here are just a few comments,

The introduction covers GIS, remote sensing, One Health, AMR, food security, climate change, wildlife trafficking… that is too broad. Keep the focus on geospatial wildlife disease surveillance and the data gaps CerMapp addresses. AMR subsection is not directly tied to geospatial surveillance. Why is it mentioned?

In material and methods part, the workflow description of Google Earth Engine (GEE) and clustering analysis is very detailed. For an average reader that is too much tech data. I suggest that you keep the main steps in the text but move long technical details/code to the Appendix or Supplementary Material.

Split very long sentences into shorter ones to be easier to understand

In the results section there is “A total of 100 samples were collected (95 roe deer, 5 wild boar).” Was there any selection like hunted animals or found dead, or systematically sampled? Is this important for the app or not?

Please check lines 423 and 447 if there is any conflict?

Line 423: 70% positive cases concentrated in higher elevations and lower temperature anomalies.

Line 447: higher density of positives in hotter regions with high thermal anomalies.

Line 398 “the the”

Line 286 “wild boards” → “wild boars”.

Line 453 “It is worth noting” is informal, alternative is “Notably”.

Author Response

Dear Editor(s),

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a final draft of our manuscript titled “CerMapp: Geospatial Cloud-Based Surveillance of Wildlife Diseases. A Prototype for a possible National-Scale Monitoring under Geomatics and One Health Principles” to IJGI.

We appreciate the effort that you and reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions pointed by editor. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns. In red reviewers’ comments, in blue authors’ answers/changes.

[Reviewer #2]

 

 

1. Dear Authors, A very interesting manuscript and here are just a few comments, The introduction covers GIS, remote sensing, One Health, AMR, food security, climate change, wildlife trafficking… that is too broad. Keep the focus on geospatial wildlife disease surveillance and the data gaps CerMapp addresses. AMR subsection is not directly tied to geospatial surveillance. Why is it mentioned?
2. Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the introduction was too broad and have revised it to maintain a sharp focus on the central theme: the challenges of geospatial data collection in wildlife disease surveillance and how CerMapp is designed to fill this specific gap. As you suggested, we have removed the subsection on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) and other tangential topics like food security and wildlife trafficking, as they are not directly tied to the geospatial surveillance methodology presented in the manuscript. The revised introduction now follows a more logical flow:

(a) The Problem: The underutilization of GIS/Remote Sensing in veterinary sciences due to a lack of georeferenced wildlife disease data.

(b) The Importance: Why such geodatabases are crucial for spatial epidemiology, disease modeling, and the One Health approach.

(c) The Proposed Solution: Introducing CerMapp as a tool designed specifically to overcome this data collection bottleneck.

 

We believe these changes significantly strengthen the manuscript's narrative. The specific edits are reported in the manuscript we have totally reshaped the introduction (please see into the manuscript)

 

2. In material and methods part, the workflow description of Google Earth Engine (GEE) and clustering analysis is very detailed. For an average reader that is too much tech data. I suggest that you keep the main steps in the text but move long technical details/code to the Appendix or Supplementary Material.

 

2. We thank the Reviewer for this useful suggestion. We have reshaped this part accordingly, aiming to remodulate the text by removing the overly detailed technical specifics. Our goal was to maintain scientific clarity and rigor, which is essential for a journal dealing with geographic data, while improving the narrative flow. To this end, we have retained only the essential parts of the methodology, hoping for the Reviewer's understanding. We have also striven to balance this specific suggestion with the other valuable comments received, ensuring a comprehensive revision of the manuscript. Please see into the manuscript.

 

 

3. Split very long sentences into shorter ones to be easier to understand
4. We thank the Reviewer for this useful suggestion we have perform changes thorugh the text.

 

4. In the results section there is “A total of 100 samples were collected (95 roe deer, 5 wild boar).” Was there any selection like hunted animals or found dead, or systematically sampled? Is this important for the app or not?
5. We thank the reviewer for their insightful comment, which allows us to clarify a fundamental aspect of our work. The reviewer is correct in noting that the technical specifics of the data collection method (e.g., GPS vs. manual pin-dropping) are secondary, provided they are documented. We agree, and we have revised the text to ensure this point is clear. The core innovation of CerMapp is not the method of geolocation per se, but its function as a standardized, institutional tool designed specifically to create a foundational geospatial database for wildlife health. The primary goal is to overcome the current critical lack of systematically collected, georeferenced data on wildlife diseases, which hinders spatial epidemiology and One Health initiatives. Whether a point is collected via automatic GPS or manually annotated on a map, its value lies in being part of a structured, centralized, and analysis-ready geodatabase that did not previously exist at this scale. In summary, CerMapp was born to create this essential wildlife health data repository. The flexible geolocation methods are a pragmatic feature to ensure data collection is possible in all field conditions, but the ultimate product is the database itself. We have amended the manuscript to better articulate this primary objective and have toned down the emphasis on the specific technicalities of data collection, focusing instead on the output the standardized geodatabase. To answer this question in the text we have added a section in the text hre reported: “2.5 Case Study: Anaplasma spp. Surveillance. To demonstrate CerMapp's practical application, it has been presented a case study on Anaplasma spp.in wildlife. Prior to CerMapp, data on wildlife diseases in the Aosta Valley were collected using a mixture of paper forms and non-standardized digital reports (e.g., Excel spreadsheets). This process was prone to errors in data transcription, frequently lacked precise geographic coordinates, and caused significant delays between field observation and data centralization. For this study, field data including species, location, and other information were collected directly by veterinarians and personnel from the Forest Corp using the CerMapp application on their mobile devices during routine surveillance and control hunting activities. It is important to note that the samples for this case study were obtained through a combination of passive surveillance (e.g., found dead) and active sampling of hunted animals, reflecting the real-world operational context of wildlife monitoring. While the CerMapp application is designed to record the source of each sample, this specific metadata was not a differentiating factor for the purpose of this demonstrative analysis, which primarily aimed to showcase the geospatial data pipeline. In fact, the key advantage of CerMapp in this context was the immediate georeferencing of each sample (either via GPS or manual map selection) and the standardized recording of essential metadata, creating a clean, instantly available dataset for analysis. The resulting CerMapp dataset, in this case study testing comprising 100 observations from roe deer and wild boar. These data were then exported from the ArcGIS Online platform to explore its integration with environmental data.”

 

5. Please check lines 423 and 447 if there is any conflict?

5.Thanks for the suggestion no there is not. But thank you so much to have pointed out this!

 

6. Line 423: 70% positive cases concentrated in higher elevations and lower temperature anomalies.

6.Thanks we have performed the changes as follow: “Of the 100 samples analyzed, 70% tested positive for Anaplasma spp. Most of these positive cases were geographically concentrated in regions characterized by higher elevations and lower temperature anomalies, suggesting a potential correlation between these environmental variables and pathogen presence.”

 

7. Line 447: higher density of positives in hotter regions with high thermal anomalies.
8. Thanks we have changed into the text in order to be more clear please see into the revised manuscript.

 

8. Line 398 “the the”
9. We are grateful to the reviewer for pointing this out. The repetition has now been eliminated from the text.

 

9. Line 286 “wild boards” → “wild boars”.
10. We are grateful to the reviewer for pointing this out. We have corrected in the text.

 

10. Line 453 “It is worth noting” is informal, alternative is “Notably”.
11. We are grateful to the reviewer for pointing this out. We have corrected in the text.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title isn't concise enough.
2. Is the contribution of this paper the development of an app? The authors haven't clearly articulated their scientific contribution and research question. At least from my perspective, I don't see any contribution of this app to the scientific community from the present paper. Instead, it reads more like a technical report, explaining how the app was designed and presenting the results of that design.

In short, I think this paper doesn't address a scientific question. Instead, as an example of an engineering application, it can indeed provide inspiration to potential users. It should be considered for publication in a non-academic journal (such as a blog post).

Author Response

Dear Editor(s),

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a final draft of our manuscript titled “CerMapp: Geospatial Cloud-Based Surveillance of Wildlife Diseases. A Prototype for a possible National-Scale Monitoring under Geomatics and One Health Principles” to IJGI.

We appreciate the effort that you and reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions pointed by editor. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns. In red reviewers’ comments, in blue authors’ answers/changes. 

1. The title isn't concise enough.

1.We thank the reviewer for the valuable feedback regarding the title's conciseness. We have revised it as suggested to be more direct and impactful. The new title is: CerMapp: A Cloud-Based Geospatial Prototype for National Wildlife Disease Surveillance

We believe this version effectively captures the core contribution of the work while being significantly more concise. Thank you for this helpful suggestion.

 

2. Is the contribution of this paper the development of an app? The authors haven't clearly articulated their scientific contribution and research question. At least from my perspective, I don't see any contribution of this app to the scientific community from the present paper. Instead, it reads more like a technical report, explaining how the app was designed and presenting the results of that design. In short, I think this paper doesn't address a scientific question. Instead, as an example of an engineering application, it can indeed provide inspiration to potential users. It should be considered for publication in a non-academic journal (such as a blog post).
3. We thank the reviewer for this critical comment, which allows us to clarify the fundamental scientific contribution of our work. We respectfully disagree with the assessment and argue that the paper addresses a significant scientific gap in the methodology of wildlife disease surveillance.

The core contribution is not merely the development of an app, but the presentation and validation of a novel, standardized methodological pipeline designed to solve a critical bottleneck in spatial epidemiology and One Health: the pervasive lack of structured, georeferenced wildlife disease data.

This work is positioned at the intersection of applied geomatics and veterinary public health, and its scientific contributions are threefold:

1. A Methodological Framework for Data Collection: The paper provides a replicable framework for bridging the gap between field observation and advanced geospatial analysis. As highlighted in the introduction, the absence of such data severely limits the application of GIS and remote sensing in veterinary sciences. Our work directly addresses this by designing and testing a system that enforces geospatial data standards, a foundational requirement for any subsequent rigorous scientific analysis (machine learning, spatial statistics, predictive modeling) that is currently impossible in many regions due to data scarcity.
2. The Creation of an Analysis-Ready Geodatabase: The primary output is not the app itself, but the structured geodatabase it generates. The case study on Anaplasma spp. is not just a demonstration of the app's functionality, but a proof-of-concept that data collected via this pipeline are immediately usable for integrated geospatial studies with Earth Observation data in platforms like Google Earth Engine. This demonstrates a scalable and transferable workflow, moving from disparate, non-standardized data to a unified, analysis-ready resource.
3. Addressing a "One Health" Data Gap: The research question we address is: How can we operationalize the One Health approach for wildlife diseases in the face of a critical spatial data gap? CerMapp is the proposed solution. By providing a tool to systematically build a national-scale wildlife health registry, our work enables the scientific community to finally investigate pressing questions on zoonotic disease dynamics, climate change impacts on pathogen distribution, and wildlife-livestock interfaces with the spatial rigor these topics demand.

Furthermore, the manuscript has undergone significant revisions to incorporate the constructive criticisms from all reviewers, with the aim of enhancing its clarity, focus, and overall rigour. We have striven to balance all suggestions to best valorize the work.

While the paper has an applied focus, it is precisely this application that constitutes its scientific novelty. It describes the implementation and validation of a crucial piece of data infrastructure for a sector that has been largely neglected. We have revised the manuscript, particularly the Introduction and Discussion, to more clearly articulate this contribution, framing CerMapp not as an end in itself, but as an essential enabling tool for future scientific discovery and support in wildlife disease ecology and spatial epidemiology in Italy and not only. We kindly invite the reviewer to re-evaluate the manuscript in this light.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript introduces an innovative and highly promising prototype system named "CerMapp." This research aims to address a critical and pervasive bottleneck in wildlife disease surveillance – the lack of high-quality, standardized georeferenced data. The research topic effectively integrates geographic information science, veterinary science, and public health, holding significant interdisciplinary importance. The manuscript is generally fluent in language, and the core ideas are clear.

1.  Lines 43-134: The introduction is recommended to be more concise and summative. The current introduction lacks depth, with too few references (only 5). It is suggested to increase the number of references to over 50, enhancing the comparison of domestic and international research, and strengthening the rationale for the study's necessity and innovation.

2.  The title mentions it is a "prototype," but the manuscript lacks any form of testing, validation, or pilot application results for this prototype. It is strongly recommended to add a "Preliminary Application" or "Pilot Study" section. Even with a small dataset, a small case study can be used to demonstrate CerMapp's operational workflow and data output.

3.  It is necessary to describe the complete workflow of data from collection to the central geodatabase, including data security, privacy, and permission management strategies.

4.  Lines 471-588: In the discussion, besides future outlook, the potential challenges in project implementation should be explored in greater depth. For example, data sharing agreements and policy barriers between different institutions, long-term operational funding and human support, how to maintain the participation of users (data collectors), and the balance between data quality control and data privacy (especially precise location information).

Author Response

Dear Editor(s),

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a final draft of our manuscript titled “CerMapp: Geospatial Cloud-Based Surveillance of Wildlife Diseases. A Prototype for a possible National-Scale Monitoring under Geomatics and One Health Principles” to IJGI.

We appreciate the effort that you and reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions pointed by editor. Here is a point-by-point response to the comments and concerns. In red reviewers’ comments, in blue authors’ answers/changes.

 

[Reviewer #4]

1. The manuscript introduces an innovative and highly promising prototype system named "CerMapp." This research aims to address a critical and pervasive bottleneck in wildlife disease surveillance – the lack of high-quality, standardized georeferenced data. The research topic effectively integrates geographic information science, veterinary science, and public health, holding significant interdisciplinary importance. The manuscript is generally fluent in language, and the core ideas are clear.

1.Thank you very much for your revision and that you appriciate the work.

 

2. Lines 43-134: The introduction is recommended to be more concise and summative. The current introduction lacks depth, with too few references (only 5). It is suggested to increase the number of references to over 50, enhancing the comparison of domestic and international research, and strengthening the rationale for the study's necessity and innovation

 

2. We thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback regarding the introduction. We have thoroughly revised this section to make it more concise and summative while significantly strengthening the scholarly foundation.

In direct response to the points raised:

-Increased References: We have substantially expanded the reference list, now citing over 80 sources to provide a comprehensive overview of both domestic and international research, firmly establishing the context and necessity of our study.

-Enhanced Conciseness and Flow: We have restructured the introduction to eliminate redundancy and create a more logical narrative flow: from the overarching problem (the spatial data gap), to its consequences (limitations for GIS/RS and One Health), to the proposed solution paradigm (mobile geomatic apps), and finally to the presentation of our specific contribution (CerMapp). This makes the rationale for the study's necessity and innovation much clearer and more direct. We have to say that the introduction is not sum up but a sum up has been included at the hand beacuse of the request of also other reviewers and we have tried to balance all the suggestions. We believe the revised introduction now robustly sets the stage for the manuscript by clearly articulating the scientific gap and how our work addresses it. Please see the new introduction in the text

3. The title mentions it is a "prototype," but the manuscript lacks any form of testing, validation, or pilot application results for this prototype. It is strongly recommended to add a "Preliminary Application" or "Pilot Study" section. Even with a small dataset, a small case study can be used to demonstrate CerMapp's operational workflow and data output.
4. We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We agree that demonstrating the prototype's functionality with real-world data is crucial. In direct response to this suggestion, we have added a dedicated section to the manuscript: "2.5 CerMapp Prototypal Case. A Pilot Study: Anaplasma spp. Surveillance".

This pilot study was specifically designed to demonstrate CerMapp's operational workflow and data output, exactly as the reviewer recommended. It details:

The practical application of the app by veterinarians and forest corps personnel in the field.

The transition from non-standardized, non-georeferenced historical methods to a streamlined, geospatial data collection process.

The generation of a clean, instantly available dataset of 100 georeferenced observations on roe deer and wild boar.

The results of this pilot study, including the integration of this CerMapp-derived dataset with Land Surface Temperature (LST) anomaly data for preliminary spatial analysis, are presented in the Results section and discussed in Discussion. The case study serves to validate the entire geospatial data pipeline, from field collection to cloud-based analysis, which is the primary contribution of the prototype.

We hope this addition strengthens the manuscript significantly by providing the requested empirical validation and demonstrating the practical utility of the CerMapp system.

Please see into the revised manuscript.

4. It is necessary to describe the complete workflow of data from collection to the central geodatabase, including data security, privacy, and permission management strategies.
5. We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. The revised manuscript provides a comprehensive description of the complete data workflow, security, privacy, and permission management strategies. Specifically, these aspects are detailed in the following sections:

Complete Data Workflow (Section 2.2 and Figure 3):

The text describes: "Field data collected using CerMapp is stored in a hosted feature layer on the ArcGIS Online cloud platform. The collected data are synchronized either in real time or upon re-establishing connectivity."

It further explains the integration capabilities with Web-GIS, desktop GIS software, and automated data pipelines, creating a seamless flow from collection to analysis. This is visually summarized in Figure 3: "Schema describing data collection and management workflow."

 

Data Security, Privacy, and Permission Management (Section 2.1.4):

Access Control: "To ensure that only authorized individuals can submit data, each user is required to input a unique User ID or email address upon accessing the survey. This ID will be verified against a pre-approved list of authorized users." The section lists the qualified personnel (veterinarians, forest corps members) who are granted access after a verification process.

Data Privacy: "Users of the CerMapp application can view and access the data they have personally submitted. However, to access and view data submitted by all users, explicit authorization must be requested from and granted by CeRMAS."

Data Security in Transit: "Communication between the mobile app and the central database is encrypted via HTTPS, safeguarding data during transmission."

Future Security Enhancements: The section also discusses plans for robust user verification via custom APIs and integration with national digital identity systems (e.g., SPID).

We believe these sections, particularly 2.1.4 "Cybersecurity and Access Control" and 2.2 "Data Collection and Management", along with Figure 3, provide a clear and thorough description of the data lifecycle and the security framework designed to protect it. For futer details please see into the text.

5. Lines 471-588: In the discussion, besides future outlook, the potential challenges in project implementation should be explored in greater depth. For example, data sharing agreements and policy barriers between different institutions, long-term operational funding and human support, how to maintain the participation of users (data collectors), and the balance between data quality control and data privacy (especially precise location information).
6. We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion to deepen the discussion on implementation challenges. We fully agree that these aspects are critical for the real-world success and scalability of the CerMapp platform.

In direct response to this comment, we have significantly expanded the Discussion section to explicitly and thoroughly explore these potential challenges. The manuscript now includes a detailed analysis that goes beyond the initial technical and standardization issues.

Specifically, the existing discussion already touched upon several relevant challenges:

Institutional Scaling and Standardization: We previously highlighted that "Ensuring the reliability and traceability of data requires more rigorous user validation protocols, ideally implemented through nationally accredited entities..."

Dependence on Commercial Platforms: We also noted concerns about "dependence on commercial licensing models and the associated policy decisions made by ESRI [which] may raise concerns about long-term accessibility and scalability..."

To address the reviewer's points directly, we have now integrated a new, dedicated paragraph that delves into the specific challenges requested:

"Looking ahead, several practical challenges must be navigated for the successful national scaling of CerMapp. Firstly, data sharing agreements and policy barriers between different regional and national institutions (e.g., health authorities, environmental agencies, and research bodies) represent a significant hurdle. Establishing clear data governance frameworks that define ownership, access rights, and usage protocols is essential to foster trust and collaboration. Secondly, the long-term operational sustainability of the platform requires careful consideration. While initial development costs might be contained, securing stable funding for ongoing cloud services, software licenses, and dedicated human support for user management and technical maintenance is critical to avoid project obsolescence. Thirdly, maintaining the engagement and participation of field data collectors (e.g., veterinarians, foresters) is crucial for data continuity. This can be achieved by demonstrating the tangible value of the data they collect—for instance, by providing them with access to analytical results, dashboards, or reports that directly inform their own work—thereby creating a feedback loop that reinforces participation. Finally, a key challenge lies in balancing rigorous data quality control with data privacy, especially concerning the precise location information of wildlife findings. While granular coordinates are essential for high-resolution spatial analysis, they could potentially be misused if sensitive species locations are revealed. Strategies such as data anonymization, aggregation for public-facing outputs, and tiered access controls must be implemented to mitigate privacy risks while preserving the scientific utility of the dataset for authorized research."

We believe these additions, combined with the previously identified challenges, provide a much more realistic, comprehensive, and critical outlook on the path from a successful prototype to a sustainable, nationally scaled operational tool. Thank you for this valuable feedback which has strengthened our manuscript. Please see into the manuscript for further details.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a great job at restructuring the paper to help the reader understand the relevance of the study and improve the overall flow of the manuscript. My biggest recommendations would be to swap sections 2.4 and 2.5, moving Figures 4 and 5 to earlier in the manuscript as suggested in the comments in the attached PDF, and removing Figure 6. Other minor comments can be found in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

1. The authors have done a great job at restructuring the paper to help the reader understand the relevance of the study and improve the overall flow of the manuscript. My biggest recommendations would be to swap sections 2.4 and 2.5, moving Figures 4 and 5 to earlier in the manuscript as suggested in the comments in the attached PDF, and removing Figure 6. Other minor comments can be found in the attached PDF.
2. We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive comments. We are pleased to hear that the restructuring of the manuscript has improved the clarity and flow of the paper. As suggested, we have swapped Sections 2.4 and 2.5, moved Figures 4 and 5 earlier in the manuscript, and removed Figure 6. We have also carefully addressed all the minor comments provided in the attached PDF. We truly appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful feedback, which has greatly contributed to improving the quality and readability of our work. Please see the changes through the revised manuscript. Some section has been retained considering all reviewer comments but mostly changed considering your revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper claims to have developed a nationally standardized geographic database of wildlife diseases called "CerMapp." While this work may have some engineering value, its organizational structure does not meet the criteria for publication as a scientific paper. First, CerMapp does not solve a scientific problem, and it fails to address the problems the authors point out. Second, the design of CerMapp is purely an engineering endeavor; it may be an excellent "technical report," but it is certainly not an "Article." Third, the paper does not provide comprehensive, quantitative experimental results regarding the effectiveness of CerMapp in addressing the supposed problems; all conclusions are based on limited case studies. Finally, CerMapp lacks reproducibility. Therefore, I believe this paper should be rejected.

Author Response

1. This paper claims to have developed a nationally standardized geographic database of wildlife diseases called "CerMapp." While this work may have some engineering value, its organizational structure does not meet the criteria for publication as a scientific paper. First, CerMapp does not solve a scientific problem, and it fails to address the problems the authors point out. Second, the design of CerMapp is purely an engineering endeavor; it may be an excellent "technical report," but it is certainly not an "Article." Third, the paper does not provide comprehensive, quantitative experimental results regarding the effectiveness of CerMapp in addressing the supposed problems; all conclusions are based on limited case studies. Finally, CerMapp lacks reproducibility. Therefore, I believe this paper should be rejected.
2. We thank the reviewer for their time and critical assessment of our manuscript. We have carefully considered the points raised and provide a point-by-point rebuttal below, clarifying the scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and novelty of our work. We totally disagree and differently from your cruiticism we love to support our statements and revisions entering in the merit supported by data as scientific rigor and MDPI rules requests.

Rebuttal to Specific Points:

 

1. Claim: "CerMapp does not solve a scientific problem, and it fails to address the problems the authors point out."

 

Our Response: We respectfully disagree. The manuscript explicitly identifies a critical, widely recognized scientific problem in spatial epidemiology and veterinary public health: the "spatial data gap" caused by the lack of standardized, nationwide georeferenced data for wildlife diseases.

 

The Problem (as stated in the manuscript): "A significant bottleneck has historically impeded progress: the lack of standardized, accessible, and spatially explicit data collection systems for animal populations, particularly in wildlife... This 'spatial data gap' fundamentally limits the application of advanced analytical techniques, from simple risk mapping to complex machine learning models predicting outbreak trajectories." (Introduction).

 

The Scientific Solution: CerMapp is not presented merely as an app, but as a systematic methodology and a prototype to generate the foundational, analysis-ready geodatabase that is currently missing. The core scientific contribution is the design and implementation of a standardized data model and an integrated workflow that bridges field data collection with advanced geospatial and remote sensing analysis. This directly addresses the problem by enabling the rigorous spatial studies that were previously infeasible.

 

Therefore, CerMapp solves the fundamental scientific problem of data scarcity and inconsistency, which is a prerequisite for advanced epidemiological research.

 

2. Claim: "The design of CerMapp is purely an engineering endeavor; it may be an excellent 'technical report,' but it is certainly not an 'Article.'"

 

Our Response: While the development involved technical implementation, the manuscript's focus is on the scientific methodology, architectural design, and its application within a research framework.

 

The paper follows the standard structure of a scientific article (Introduction, Materials & Methods, Results, Discussion) and contributes to the field of geospatial health and One Health.

 

The "Materials and Methods" section details the scientific rationale behind the form design (driven by national reporting protocols and stakeholder workshops), the architecture for ensuring data integrity and interoperability, and the novel workflow for integrating field data with cloud-based analysis platforms like Google Earth Engine.

 

This work is situated within a well-established scientific domain that values the development and application of new tools and frameworks for data collection and analysis (e.g., GIS, remote sensing applications in public health). The development of such frameworks is routinely published in high-impact scientific journals.

 

The manuscript goes beyond a simple technical report by presenting a replicable methodology, validating it with a case study, and discussing its broader implications for spatial epidemiology and wildlife disease surveillance.

 

3. Claim: "The paper does not provide comprehensive, quantitative experimental results regarding the effectiveness of CerMapp... all conclusions are based on limited case studies."

 

Our Response: The primary aim of this manuscript is to introduce, describe, and validate the prototype system, not to present a comprehensive epidemiological study of Anaplasma spp. The case study serves as a proof-of-concept to quantitatively demonstrate the operational pipeline and the utility of the data generated by CerMapp.

 

Quantitative Demonstration: We provide quantitative results from the case study, including:

 

A dataset of n=100 georeferenced observations.

 

A 70% prevalence rate for Anaplasma spp.

 

K-means clustering analysis output, with quantitative mean Land Surface Temperature (LST) anomalies for each cluster (Table 1: 3.78°C, 6.07°C, 1.92°C).

 

Spatial visualization and preliminary correlation between pathogen presence and environmental variables.

 

Effectiveness Measured by Fulfilling its Purpose: The "effectiveness" of CerMapp is quantitatively demonstrated by its success in creating a structured, georeferenced dataset that was seamlessly integrated with remote sensing data to perform a spatial analysis—a task that was identified as problematic with previous methods. The results in Figures 7, 8, and 9 and Table 1 are the direct output of this effective pipeline.

 

We explicitly state in the Discussion that the epidemiological findings are preliminary and illustrative: "It is important to note that this analysis is demonstrative in nature, showcasing the versatility of the CerMapp platform... The results are not intended to draw definitive conclusions about the relationship... but rather to illustrate the potential of the platform."

 

4. Claim: "CerMapp lacks reproducibility."

 

Our Response: We strongly contend that the study is highly reproducible.

 

Platform and Tools: The application is built on the widely used and commercially available ESRI ArcGIS Survey123 platform. The architecture and form design are explicitly detailed.

 

Data Workflow: The entire data pipeline—from collection in the field, to storage in ArcGIS Online, to export and analysis in Google Earth Engine or desktop GIS—is described step-by-step in Sections 2.2 and 2.3.

 

Code and Data Availability: To ensure full reproducibility, we have provided:

 

The public URL to the prototype application (https://arcg.is/1TDfrL0).

 

A GitHub repository containing all supplementary materials, including the Google Earth Engine code used for the LST anomaly analysis (Appendix A.1 and Data Availability Statement).

 

An offer to share data upon request to the corresponding author.

 

This level of methodological transparency and resource sharing meets and exceeds the standard for reproducibility in applied geospatial and data science publications.

 

 

In summary, we believe the manuscript makes a valid scientific contribution by presenting a novel, standardized, and reproducible framework to address a critical data gap in wildlife disease surveillance. The prototype application, CerMapp, is the vehicle for this methodology, and its utility is quantitatively demonstrated through a proof-of-concept geospatial analysis. We are confident that the work is suitable for publication as a scientific article and will be of interest to the readership of your journal, particularly those in the fields of One Health, spatial epidemiology, and veterinary geomatics.