Empowering Maritime Spatial Planning and Marine Conservation Efforts Through Digital Engagement: The Role of Online Platforms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper explores the role of digital platforms in strengthening ocean governance, specifically promoting marine spatial planning and marine conservation by improving communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The objectives of the paper are too much broad, and the paper is too short and needs further expansion. More importantly, the key innovation of the study is not clearly described.

 

Major comments:

1. The paper lacks sufficient depth, offering only a concise summary. What is the key innovation of the study?
2. To strengthen the introduction, it can be made more comprehensive by expanding on the following areas: 1) Existing research and gap; 2) Research objectives and contributions; and 3) Methodological approach. Specifically, such as "Platforms facilitate collaboration among Nation States, economic sectors, and a range of stakeholders. For example, the platforms serving regional fisheries' management organisations and international conventions help align efforts to address shared challenges like overfishing, pollution, and habitat protection." in Lines 81-84, this is a simple and general statement. Please further elaborate on the specific research.
3. The authors mentioned that "The online platforms were assessed through desktop research, alongside online interviews conducted with representatives of ten selected platforms to evaluate their barriers, enablers, and clarifying the needs ahead of the design of an Ocean Governance Hub." What are the specific criteria for desktop research and online interviews?
4. The analysis focuses heavily on European platforms (e.g., HELCOM,MSP-ER, Atlantic Platform, EU Marine Board). How about non-EU platforms?
5. The authors only mentioned the importance of the alliance-based model, but didnot explain how the alliance can be transformed into ocean governance results.
6. Some questionnaires were distributed to platform users for the assessment, but the results are not quantified in the manuscript.
7. The paper is too brief and requires further expansion.

 

Minor comments:

1. Clarification of Terminology: Ensure that key terms, like "NGOs", "MSP-OR", "HELCOM", and "OSPAR", are clearly defined early in the manuscript. This will help readers unfamiliar with the specific terminology to better understand the concepts discussed.
   2. Lines 99-100. Whatdoes "sector-specific" mean?
   3. Verify that the link (www.platform-msp-or.eu) is active.
   4. Table 1 lists the barriers and enablers of the OGr platforms. Are there any rankings of these factors?
   5. "A notable trend in evaluating the MSP-OR Platform is the evident decrease in reported technical difficulties between the first and second surveys.". Give more detaileds to support or substantiate the statement.
   6. Stakeholder Engagement Section: A deeper dive into the effectiveness of different communication strategies used by platforms would provide more actionable insights.

Author Response

The document is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is not a research article, it is a review or opinion article.

1.The authors need to revise the presentation accordingly, including abstract, introduction, methodology, results and discussion, conclusion.

2.Line 21-23: “Findings show that these platforms bridge gaps between regional, national, and non-governmental organisations, promoting informed decision-making.” This statement is based on the results of a definitive statistical analysis.

3.Line 25-27: “The results include the rules and design for cooperation and co-design of a platform to foster better communication, collaboration, and sustainable ocean management practices.” This point is a policy recommendation of the manuscript. This point is a policy recommendation of the manuscript, not a research results.

4.Line 46: “The United Nations Decade for Ocean Sustainability, from 2021 to 2030,” This is not a regular footnote used to illustrate a technical term, the citation is not standardized and needs to be placed in the references section. The rest of the manuscript needs to be treated similarly to standardize it.

5.Line 52-53: “Among the essential tools that the Ocean Decade relies on to support ocean governance are collaborative networks and platforms.” This is not a regular footnote used to illustrate a technical term, the citation is not standardized and needs to be placed in the references section. The rest of the manuscript needs to be treated similarly to standardize it.

6.Overall, the introduction does not highlight the motivation and purpose of the study and this section needs to be carefully revised and highlighted.

7.Line 132: The methodology and data or materials of the study should be presented, including literature collection or search criteria, and a categorized table or analytical flow chart should be developed.

8.Line 263: This section is missing the relevant basis of the argument, and relevant literature citations.

9.Line 379: Section 3.6 should be a policy implications and would be more appropriately placed in the conclusion.

10.Line 403: Replace this section with conclusions and policy implications. The conclusions need to be condensed.

Author Response

The document is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Empowering Maritime Spatial Planning and Marine Conservation efforts through Digital Engagement: The Role of Online Platforms” analyzed several platforms related to ocean governance using four criteria: collaborative initiatives, use of digital tools, a “knowledge network” approach, and relevance to challenges.

An immediate question arises: how representative is the sample of ten platforms? Perhaps it is worth expanding the sample to increase the generalizability of the results.

The methodology includes desktop studies and online interviews. These are standard methods, but it is important to note that online interviews may have limitations such as selection bias or incomplete responses. The authors mention barriers and facilitators to the success of the platforms, but the discussion of these aspects seems superficial. It would be useful to delve deeper into how exactly these barriers are overcome in practice.

The MSP-OR platform is described in detail, including its design and functionality. The evaluation of the MSP-OR platform includes user surveys, which is important for feedback. However, the authors mention a decrease in technical difficulties between the first and second surveys, but do not provide specific data or metrics. This reduces the credibility of the findings.

Comments.

1. The analysis of ten platforms, although representative, requires justification for the choice. It is unclear why Global Fishing Watch or the UN Ocean Decade Platform are not included?
2. The issues mentioned (e.g. data protection, digital divide) are discussed in general terms. There are no specific cases or quantitative data confirming their impact.
3. Claims about a decrease in technical difficulties in MSP-OR between surveys are not supported by metrics (e.g. percentage of users experiencing errors).
4. MSP-OR is presented as a compilation of existing practices (e.g. OSPAR, HELCOM), but its unique features are not compared to peers. It is unclear how unique this platform is compared to existing ones. Are there innovative elements, or is it a compilation of best practices?
5. Online interviews may have resulted in sample bias (e.g., only active users participated). No analysis of the limitations of the method.
6. Conclusions about the need for hybrid platforms are general. Specific steps to integrate interactive elements (e.g., AI tools, gamification) are not suggested.
7. The results are presented as a table of barriers and success factors, which is clear, but some points require additional explanation. For example, how exactly do "push notifications" contribute to the use of the platform? Is there any data on their effectiveness?

Conclusion. The materials of the paper require a more in-depth analysis and data confirmation. The article requires revision in terms of the empirical base and depth of analysis. It would also be useful to include a comparison with previous studies and discuss the limitations of the current work. The implementation of the proposed ideas requires more detailed elaboration and data confirmation.

Author Response

The document is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript explores the role of digital platforms in enhancing ocean governance by improving communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The study evaluates various platforms through interviews and document analysis, comparing strengths and weaknesses to provide recommendations for building more effective and inclusive governance systems. Digital platforms in ocean governance are an emerging and important field. However, several questions need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.

1. Clarity and Structure:
   As a research article, the manuscript should clearly state the research questions, methodology, and key findings as well as innovation points, which should be improved in this manuscript. Currently, the Results and Discussion section appears repetitive and does not show a clear structure. I recommend adding a brief summary at the beginning of this section to clarify its structure. Moreover, the discussion lacks depth and sufficient comparison with previous studies. Because this is a research article rather than a review, the authors should discuss deeper, and maybe cite and engage with more related literature to highlight its originality and innovation.
2. Figure 1:
   “:” is not formal in the title of a figure.
3. Grammar and Language Issues:
   • The sentence at the end of Section 1 is grammatically incorrect:
     “The main goal is to establish the strengths and good practices of these platforms by enabling OGr; build on these lessons learned…”
     The semicolon (“;”) is used incorrectly.
   • In Section 3.5, this sentence needs correction:
     “...it emerges itself as a more reliable and user-friendly.”
     This is incorrect. 
   • The phrase “On the opposite” is grammatically incorrect.

In summary, while the manuscript addresses an interesting and emerging topic, improvements in methodological clarity, logical structure, and language quality are needed to meet the standards of a peer-reviewed research article.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally okay but some typos need to be checked.

Author Response

The document is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Many changes have been made to the manuscript as a whole. Continuing to enhance some of the detailed revisions will help refine the manuscript.

1.Line 18: “This Review” is replaced with “This study”.

2.Line 21: “Findings” is is replaced with “These findings”.

3.Table 1: The use of bolding for some phrases does not seem to be necessary.

4.Line 145, 155,165, 176: Remove the space between the symbol and the subtitle, such as use “I.Collaborative Initiative Criterion”.

5.The conclusion section needs to be changed from its current form; two paragraphs are appropriate. A few sentences summarize this review and give next steps or possible limitations of the research.

Author Response

REV2:   Many changes have been made to the manuscript as a whole. Continuing to enhance some of the detailed revisions will help refine the manuscript. 1.Line 18: “This Review” is replaced with “This study”. Changed accordingly 2.Line 21: “Findings” is is replaced with “These findings”. Changed accordingly 3.Table 1: The use of bolding for some phrases does not seem to be necessary. Changed accordingly. 4.Line 145, 155,165, 176: Remove the space between the symbol and the subtitle, such as use “I.Collaborative Initiative Criterion”. Changed accordingly 5.The conclusion section needs to be changed from its current form; two paragraphs are appropriate. A few sentences summarize this review and give next steps or possible limitations of the research. Changed accordingly, Conclusion now reads:   The theme of "Ocean Governance Platforms “is still underexplored in scientific literature, thus stressing the need to evaluate their effectiveness, user engagement, and contribution to policy-making support. The growing use of digital platforms for spatial planning, demonstrates their potential as tools for fostering dialogue among diverse stakeholders. These platforms can bridge gaps between government agencies, NGOs, local communities, and the public, promoting transparency and inclusive participation.   Ocean conservation and management policies are continuously evolving, adopting new approaches at an increasing pace. These developments are often reflected through emerging online platforms that contribute to Ocean Governance—such as the Ocean Decade and  Fishwatch platforms. However, these platforms were not included in this study due to its predefined time boundaries. This represents a limitation on the study that should be addressed in future research. Subsequent studies need to revise or refine the criteria for selecting platforms and assess their effectiveness considering the new policies formulation and the evolving underlying concepts.     In the context of the Ocean Decade’s goals, digital platforms should evolve into hybrid systems that balance detailed formal information with interactive features such as AI-driven insights and gamification elements. Success relies on fostering collaborative processes and structured dialogues among governments, non-governmental organizations, and civil society, enabling knowledge exchange and adaptive governance

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analysis of responses to reviewer comments

1. The materials of the paper require a more in-depth analysis and data confirmation. The article requires revision in terms of the empirical base and depth of analysis. It would also be useful to include a comparison with previous studies and discuss the limitations of the current work. The implementation of the proposed ideas requires more detailed elaboration and data confirmation.

Answer:

The authors refer to the Introduction letter (where they explain why the article is submitted as a review). Added clarification on the platform selection criteria. Recognized that the surveys only covered platform users (risk of selection bias).

However, there is a lack of specific data (for example, statistics on technical problems in MSP-OR). No comparisons with other studies are provided (especially for the Review article category), which reduces the scientific value. The discussion of limitations is superficial.

2. Online interviews may have resulted in sample bias (e.g., only active users participated). No analysis of the limitations of the method.

The authors indicated that "one of the limitations is that the survey only included platform users." This is not enough. It was necessary to discuss how this could have affected the results.

3. Claims about a decrease in technical difficulties in MSP OR between surveys are not supported by metrics (e.g. percentage of users experiencing errors).

The authors added examples of improvements (login system, notifications, meeting scheduling). However, there are no specific numbers (e.g., "in the first survey, 40% complained about login errors, in the second - 15%"). Without this, the statement looks unfounded.

4. Conclusions about the need for hybrid platforms are general. Specific steps to integrate interactive elements (e.g., AI tools, gamification) are not suggested.

The authors claim that they added information to the text, but in it is not disclosed in the responses. If changes were made, they should have been clearly shown (e.g. by quoting the new version of the article). This also applies to other responses.

Result:

The authors have partially taken into account the comments, but:

- in my opinion, there is not enough quantitative data for the key statements;

- there are not enough comparisons with other studies;

- the discussion of limitations is too brief.

The paper is still not satisfactory for a high-ranking journal.

Author Response

REV 3:   Comments and Suggestions for Authors Analysis of responses to reviewer comments The materials of the paper require a more in-depth analysis and data confirmation. The article requires revision in terms of the empirical base and depth of analysis. It would also be useful to include a comparison with previous studies and discuss the limitations of the current work. The implementation of the proposed ideas requires more detailed elaboration and data confirmation. Answer: The authors refer to the Introduction letter (where they explain why the article is submitted as a review). Added clarification on the platform selection criteria. Recognized that the surveys only covered platform users (risk of selection bias). However, there is a lack of specific data (for example, statistics on technical problems in MSP-OR). No comparisons with other studies are provided (especially for the Review article category), which reduces the scientific value. The discussion of limitations is superficial.  There are no other studies available on the role of online platforms to support Ocean Governance. Since this is now a Review paper the objective is to stand as a reference for future studies that will develop the suggestions done by Reviewer 3 and not to proceed with an in depth discussion that is natural on a “research” paper.   Online interviews may have resulted in sample bias (e.g., only active users participated). No analysis of the limitations of the method. The authors indicated that "one of the limitations is that the survey only included platform users." This is not enough. It was necessary to discuss how this could have affected the results.  “One of the limitations of this assessment is that only the users of the platform were included in the survey, which may have been influenced by the fact that the opinions collected come exclusively from partners of the project, potentially constraining the findings by introducing a bias towards more favorable perceptions or experiences”. (This information is now included in the re-submitted file).   Claims about a decrease in technical difficulties in MSP OR between surveys are not supported by metrics (e.g. percentage of users experiencing errors). The authors added examples of improvements (login system, notifications, meeting scheduling). However, there are no specific numbers (e.g., "in the first survey, 40% complained about login errors, in the second - 15%"). Without this, the statement looks unfounded.     “A notable trend in evaluating the MSP-OR Platform is the reduction in reported technical difficulties, decreasing from 11 notifications in the first survey to none in the last survey This improvement can be attributed to enhancements in functionalities such as online meeting scheduling, the login system, and notification sending.” (This information in now included in the re-submitted file) . 3.     Conclusions about the need for hybrid platforms are general. Specific steps to integrate interactive elements (e.g., AI tools, gamification) are not suggested.  Yes, they are included in both the previous and the newest versions. Please refer to lines 479-480 in the re-submitted file for confirmation. This reference is already a concession from the authors to integrate and respect reviewer 3 suggestions. However, the authors are not comfortable with the formulation of “specific steps to integrate interactive elements” as this was not an objective of this study; the authors consider that a Review study is not the place to introduce the formulation of such steps; and finally there’s no data collected for this study to support the discussion and setting of those steps.   The authors claim that they added information to the text, but in it is not disclosed in the responses. If changes were made, they should have been clearly shown (e.g. by quoting the new version of the article). This also applies to other responses.  Please refer to all tracking chances in the re-submitted file for confirmation. Result: The authors have partially taken into account the comments, but: - in my opinion, there is not enough quantitative data for the key statements; The quantitative data that we can present is always limited to the users of the MSP-OR platform. we have introduced one number/figure to support the decrease of technical difficulties experienced and this limitation is clearly stated in the text. - there are not enough comparisons with other studies; There are no studies published on the use of Online platforms to support Ocean Governance. - the discussion of limitations is too brief. We have changed conclusion to satisfy this comment and at the same time Reviewer 2 comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, I am satisfied with the responses received and thank the authors for this.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments, which have helped improve the paper.