Evolving National Identity in Korea (2012–2021) and Implications for Social Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The term 'true Korean' is problematic; 'Koreanness', which is used later in the article, is better.

The term 'cultural heritage' needs explaining. See my comments on the ms. 

Indeed, a section giving some background to Korean society would be helpful, as the reader is presented with a formulaic analysis that could be for any country.

Lines 550-551: unusual findings need some explanation even if only speculation. You have done this below. Why not here? See my notes on ms.

However, the article still stands without these changs as it is a competent effort, and well expressed. My suggestions are how it could be even better.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review report and Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on my manuscript. I greatly appreciate your suggestions for improving the quality of the paper, and I have carefully considered each of your points. Below, I address each of your comments and explain the revisions made to enhance the manuscript.

The term 'true Korean' is problematic; 'Koreanness', which is used later in the article, is better.

I understand your concern about the potential issues with using the term "True Korean" and your preference for "Koreanness." However, I have chosen to use the term "True Korean" consistently throughout the manuscript because this terminology aligns with the measurement tools used in this study, which were developed with reference to the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) questions. In the ISSP, terms such as "a True Nationality" or "Truly Nationality" are used in a similar context. To maintain consistency with these internationally recognized survey items, I decided to retain "True Korean." I hope this explanation clarifies the rationale behind this choice and addresses your concerns.

The term 'cultural heritage' needs explaining. See my comments on the ms.

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the use of the term "cultural heritage" in the manuscript. I appreciate your attention to detail and your comments on this issue. The term "cultural heritage" was used directly from the research tools employed in this study. I recognize, after reviewing your feedback, that "cultural heritage" can indeed have a very broad range of meanings, and the term's usage could benefit from further clarification and analysis. However, in this case, I have retained the term as it was originally included in the survey tools. Your comment has provided valuable insight, and I now see the potential for a more in-depth exploration of this term in future research. A deeper analysis of "cultural heritage" could certainly lead to more meaningful findings in subsequent studies.

Indeed, a section giving some background to Korean society would be helpful, as the reader is presented with a formulaic analysis that could be for any country.

Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion to include a section providing background on Korean society. I agree that such context would greatly enhance the manuscript. In response to your feedback, I have added a section that offers an overview of Korean society.

Lines 550-551: unusual findings need some explanation even if only speculation. You have done this below. Why not here? See my notes on ms.\

Thank you for your insightful comments regarding the unusual findings in lines 550-551. In response to your suggestion, I have expanded the explanation in this section to include speculation about the finding

However, the article still stands without these changs as it is a competent effort, and well expressed. My suggestions are how it could be even better.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I have carefully revised the manuscript based on your suggestions, which have certainly contributed to improving the clarity and depth of the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well conducted research, with excellent knowledge of the literature on the topic. As it is based only on quantitative research, it would be good to follow it up with qualitative ones, i.e. with face-to-face specific interviews. This would condense the conclusions.

But that's for the next stage.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thoughtful review and positive evaluation of my research.

I truly appreciate your valuable suggestion to complement the quantitative research with qualitative methods, such as face-to-face interviews, to further condense the conclusions.

In response to your recommendation, I have revised the manuscript to explicitly acknowledge the limitation of relying solely on quantitative methods. I have also included a discussion suggesting that future research should incorporate qualitative approaches to gain a deeper understanding of participants' lived experiences and the factors shaping their perceptions of national identity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research ‘Evolving National Identity in Korea (2012-2021) and Implications for Social Sustainability’ addresses the problem of how the change in national identity in Korea reflects broader social and political changes, i.e. it shows that the concept of national identity is not static, but evolving.

The issue addressed is of high interest to researchers, academics, citizens and political leaders because it helps to direct actions towards a better society in harmony with the Sustainable Development Goals.

The document is written in the format of scientific reports and according to the editorial policies of the journal. The reading and presentation of arguments and results follows a logical sequence and is easy to understand.

The methodology employed is quantitative, using latent class analysis (LCA) to examine survey data collected among Korean adults. This mechanism is used to identify hidden subgroups within the population based on their responses, thus arriving at a more nuanced understanding of the data.

The paper notes that, based on the results, there is a decline in traditional cultural and ethnic identities, with an increase in more civic and flexible identity groups. The new categories, non-territorial, civic, pluralistic and territorial-cultural, illustrate a more complex understanding of national belonging, shaped by multiple dimensions.

The weakness of the article lies in a limited theoretical framework.

It is suggested that the author(s) strengthen the theoretical framework section or the presentation of the academic and scientific state of the art. There is little reference to recent research. It is highly probable that in the last five years results of similar or related studies have been published. In the references accompanying the manuscript, fundamental studies and ‘grey literature’ justifying the research are listed. A review of recent scientific publications in high impact journals is required because they present evidence that could contribute to the interpretation of the results.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough and insightful review of my manuscript. I sincerely appreciate your positive assessment, particularly regarding the broad relevance of the research and the clarity in presenting the arguments and results. Your recognition of the paper's logical structure and accessibility is highly encouraging.

I am also very grateful for your constructive feedback regarding the theoretical framework. I fully agree that strengthening this section with references to more recent studies, particularly from high-impact journals, would enhance the scholarly rigor and relevance of the manuscript. In response to your suggestion, I have revised the theoretical framework, incorporating recent research that provides further context and supports the evolving concept of national identity in Korea. These additional references contribute to a more comprehensive interpretation of the findings and align the discussion with the current academic discourse.

Once again, I extend my sincere thanks for your valuable feedback, which has significantly contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.