A Digital Certificate System That Complies with International Standards: Taiwan Digital COVID-19 Certificate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the nice manuscript.

however, take note of the following which were not addressed in the review:

. The methods/methodology followed in this study is not clear,  include how sampling was conducted.

. Also support the discussion with literature.

Other minor grammar errors were highlighted in the manuscripts.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Thank you for the nice manuscript.

however, take note of the following which were not addressed in the review:

 

Point 1: The methods/methodology followed in this study is not clear, include how sampling was conducted.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable insights. Since this study is a qualitative research rather than quantitative research, there are no experimental and control groups, and therefore no sampling was conducted. Nonetheless, we will still consider your suggestions when discussing our research direction.

 

Point 2: Also support the discussion with literature.

 

Response 2: Thank you for the reminder. We have added reference [20] to support our discussion.

 

Point 3: Other minor grammar errors were highlighted in the manuscripts.

 

Response 3: Thank you for the reminder. We have made appropriate modifications according to the annotated file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic selection is interesting, and I believe it is still valid. Although we are essentially over COVID-19, it cannot be excluded that similar issues may come. Moreover, digital identification has several other opportunities.

The presented content is acceptable, but I feel that it is less deep than needed in a journal paper. I can recommend the publication with a major revision. I ask the authors the give more background of the system, not just the process: what resources are used, how many administrators work with it, who has access to the data etc. Even more details about the technology could be welcome. In addition, the discussion must be more critical, or it could give an outlook on future expansions.

There are two technical issues: The journal is Standards, but the template is from another MDPI journal. In the editing, spaces are missing before in-text references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

The topic selection is interesting, and I believe it is still valid. Although we are essentially over COVID-19, it cannot be excluded that similar issues may come. Moreover, digital identification has several other opportunities.

 

Point 1: The presented content is acceptable, but I feel that it is less deep than needed in a journal paper. I can recommend the publication with a major revision. I ask the authors the give more background of the system, not just the process: what resources are used, how many administrators work with it, who has access to the data etc. Even more details about the technology could be welcome. In addition, the discussion must be more critical, or it could give an outlook on future expansions.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your feedback. The system in our study is hosted on the cloud, utilizing Google Cloud services. For the completion of the certificate, we also used the government's certification system. As for resources, we employed the FHIR international standard, which we have included in the background section. The primary users of our system are travelers, but it has subsequently been applied in certain domestic locations for the verification of the health status of the general public. Our core technology involves the verification of certificate public keys, primarily used by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the Centers for Disease Control, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We have supplemented key information regarding our core technology in this study.

 

Point 2: There are two technical issues: The journal is Standards, but the template is from another MDPI journal. In the editing, spaces are missing before in-text references.

 

Response 2: Thank you for the reminder. We have made changes regarding the above two issues.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents the background, process, and the results of technical evaluation of Taiwan's digital covid-19 certificate by the government. 

Overall, the research is far from a scholarly one, lacks conceptual framework, and scientific analysis and results. It would be better if the authors present the case using a conceptual framework (as there is a rich body of standardization strategies), and analyze the environment, capabilities, strategic approaches, and results based on scientific criteria.  

 

However, this paper presents a rich and novel case of standardization process (though without scientific methods). I think this rich story of standardization is the value of this paper. Though it is weak as a research paper, it can be useful for scholars in the field of standardization studies.

 

For this reason, I would suggest this article in the journal.

 

Before publication, I suggest that there must be English copy-editing. Though I am not a native English writer, I could find a number of wrong expressions. In addition, in Table 1 there are some errors in English words especially when a word breaks between lines such as en-1.sure, com-1.ply, can1., and vac-2.cination. These small mistakes should be revised befoire publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

The article presents the background, process, and the results of technical evaluation of Taiwan's digital covid-19 certificate by the government.

 

Overall, the research is far from a scholarly one, lacks conceptual framework, and scientific analysis and results. It would be better if the authors present the case using a conceptual framework (as there is a rich body of standardization strategies), and analyze the environment, capabilities, strategic approaches, and results based on scientific criteria. 

 

However, this paper presents a rich and novel case of standardization process (though without scientific methods). I think this rich story of standardization is the value of this paper. Though it is weak as a research paper, it can be useful for scholars in the field of standardization studies.

 

For this reason, I would suggest this article in the journal.

 

Point 1: Before publication, I suggest that there must be English copy-editing. Though I am not a native English writer, I could find a number of wrong expressions. In addition, in Table 1 there are some errors in English words especially when a word breaks between lines such as en-1.sure, com-1.ply, can1., and vac-2.cination. These small mistakes should be revised befoire publication.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, we have made the modifications as described.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors presented a technical evaluation of the Digital Covid Certificate issuance mechanism to overcome the inconvenience caused by the pandemic for travel across countries. The authors need to address the following issues for further improvement.

a. Abstract needs to be revised, addressing the challenges and results.

b. How the data security is ensured across countries?

c. It seems the system is centralized. What about data interoperability issues?

d. How will the government agree to upload the signature and data?

e. What is the contribution of the research. It is not clear.

f. References need to update considering the certificate issuing technique in 2023. Many countries have developed their own application to verify covid certificates. There is no citations of 2023 work.

g. Related work section needs a further comprehensive review.

i. Currently, the covid restrictions are not applied in many countries. So, how the research will be applicable.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is fine.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

 

The authors presented a technical evaluation of the Digital Covid Certificate issuance mechanism to overcome the inconvenience caused by the pandemic for travel across countries. The authors need to address the following issues for further improvement.

 

Point 1: Abstract needs to be revised, addressing the challenges and results.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion, we have added the information to the abstract as recommended.

 

Point 2: How the data security is ensured across countries?

 

Response 2: We have added a section in the paper, 4.1, on how to ensure data security between different countries.

 

Point 3: It seems the system is centralized. What about data interoperability issues?

 

Response 3: As the system must comply with international verification mechanisms, the data format must adhere to international standards. This system uses the FHIR international standard, thus resolving data interoperability issues.

 

Point 4: How will the government agree to upload the signature and data?

 

Response 4: The signature and data need to comply with the format established by the EU, and the details are described in section 3.1.2.

 

Point 5: What is the contribution of the research. It is not clear.

 

Response 5: The contribution of this study is to provide a successful case in Taiwan of the "Digital COVID-19 Certificate", which is one of the few examples of a cross-platform application with a certificate signature. We hope that this can serve as a reference for the government when issuing other related certificates and verifications in the future. When designing the architecture, we aim for a decentralized, distributed environment. In particular, in emergency situations like the Covid-19 pandemic, where a system that meets international standards needs to be built in a short time, the experience of the "Digital COVID-19 Certificate" can certainly be helpful.

 

Point 6: References need to update considering the certificate issuing technique in 2023. Many countries have developed their own application to verify covid certificates. There is no citations of 2023 work.

 

Response 6: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added recent references to our paper as recommended.

 

Point 7: Related work section needs a further comprehensive review.

 

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We have reviewed and revised the content according to your suggestions.

 

Point 8: Currently, the covid restrictions are not applied in many countries. So, how the research will be applicable.

 

Response 8: Many countries may not have implemented Covid-19-related restrictions, but similar pandemics may occur in the future. If there is a successful case of the "Digital COVID-19 Certificate", it will enable other countries to shorten the time required to build similar systems and avoid cross-platform limitations when they encounter similar situations in the future. This is what this study hopes to achieve.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I maintain my opinion about the benefits of the manuscript. This case study is a good example for other countries as well. In the reviewer opinion, I asked to improve the scientific soundness and the background of the research. The authors followed my instructions; the required information and explanations are now added. I have no further requests, I can recommend the publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for addressing the comments. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is fine now.