Factors Influencing Digital Technology Adoption and Usage Among Workers in Fisheries and Aquaculture in South Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aims to examine the factors influencing the adoption and use of digital technologies by fishers and farmers and to explore both the challenges and opportunities they face. By identifying the barriers and drivers of digital adoption, this research seeks to propose actionable strategies for facilitating the digital transformation of Korea's fisheries and aquaculture and unlocking its potential for sustainable growth. The study is good and has a valuable scientific contribution, but there are many issues that should be brought to the attention of the distinguished authors in order to address them.

1. I suggest to delete the Simple Summary it is repeats information already presented in the Abstract (e.g., barriers such as cost, infrastructure, and perception).

2. The Abstract is lengthy and includes too many detailed statistical results (e.g., correlation values).

Condense the Abstract to focus on the research objective, key findings, and implications. Move detailed statistics to the Results section.

3. 4. Repetition between Simple Summary, Abstract, and Discussion. The same concepts (e.g., cost barriers, infrastructure gaps, perceptions) appear almost verbatim in multiple sections.Please differentiate sections by purpose — Simple Summary (policy relevance), Abstract (overview of findings), Discussion (interpretation).

4. Terminology inconsistency (“digital transformation,” “digital adoption,” “digital technology experience”). These terms are used interchangeably but may have distinct meanings. please define each term clearly in the Methods or early Discussion and use consistently throughout.

5. Results mix statistical findings and interpretation, reducing clarity. Please Separate “Statistical Results” (data findings) from “Interpretation” (implications), and use subheadings for readability.

6. The Discussion restates many of the Results instead of expanding interpretation. Please focus on interpretation, comparison with prior studies, and policy implications rather than reiterating results.

7. Many sentences exceed 40 words, reducing readability (e.g., lines 284–291).Please break complex sentences into shorter, clearer statements while maintaining formal tone.

8. The Conclusion section is too long, please shorten it and focus on the most important results, and don't forget to number it, as it is the fifth section (5).

9.The Conclusion reiterates much of the Discussion without highlighting new insights or contributions. Shorten the Conclusion to focus on (1) key takeaways, (2) practical implications, and (3) clear directions for future research.

10. My main concern regarding this paper is the lack of clarity regarding its novelty and the research gap it fills. Please clarify the paper's novelty in the abstract or at the end of the introduction.

Author Response

Reviewer #1
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thoughtful and constructive comments. All suggestions have been carefully considered and fully addressed in the revised manuscript. A summary of the major revisions is provided below:

1. Simple Summary removed.
As recommended, the Simple Summary has been deleted to avoid repetition with the Abstract.
2. Abstract condensed.
The Abstract has been shortened by removing detailed statistical values and focusing on objectives, key findings, novelty, and implications.
3. Clear distinction among sections.
Repetitive statements across the Simple Summary, Abstract, and Discussion were removed. Each section now serves a distinct purpose.
4. Terminology clarified and standardized.
Definitions of “digital transformation,” “digital adoption,” and “digital technology experience” were added in the Methods section, and consistent terminology is now used throughout.
5. Results reorganized for clarity.
Statistical findings and interpretation have been clearly separated with structured subheadings (Descriptive Statistics, Correlation Analysis, Group Comparison, Regression Analysis). And we moved a few paragraphs to Discussion sector as they could be judged as subjective interpretations rather than objective results. 
6. Discussion strengthened.
Repetitive descriptions were removed. The section now focuses on interpretation, comparison with prior studies, and policy implications.
7. Long sentences revised.
Sentences exceeding 40 words were rewritten for clarity and readability while maintaining academic tone.
8-9. Conclusion shortened and refocused.
The Conclusion has been significantly condensed to emphasize key findings, practical implications, and future research directions.
10. Novelty and research gap clarified.
A clear explanation of the study's novelty—integrated analysis of structural and perceptual factors across both fisheries and aquaculture—has been added to both the Abstract and the end of the Introduction.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Korean fishers and technology

1 – The abstract and summary are clear and well-written

2 – Inclusion of the attitudes of the greater public is a good idea and appropriate

3 – The methods are well described statistically.  The paper should provide information on how the respondents were selected, whether they were independent operators or employees of larger operations, and other details describing the economic context of the informants. In addition, the researchers need to clarify any actions taken to protect the subjects and to avoid biasing the outcomes. An additional paragraph on the interview process would be very helpful.

4 – I would rather see the actual p value with stars for significance, in the table of results. The system used in the paper is correct and acceptable, however, it just provides less information.  

5 – After drawing nearly even samples of capture and aquaculture fishers, no tables compare the two sectors.

6 – In the discussion of negative correlations circa line 188, it is not clear whether these factors are irrelevant or some sectors are less likely to adopt technology.  “Negative correlations were identified with device use (ρ = -0.489), 189 participation in government programs(ρ = -0.452), region (ρ = -0.411), type of fishery and 190 aquaculture (ρ = -0.321), and age group (ρ = -0.284).”  This statement needs more detail to clarify the effects.  More clarification of the results would help.

7 – The two paragraphs in the discussion are overly long, and breaking these into key subtopics would tighten the presentation. However, the discussion hits the main points convincingly and is appropriate to the data provided.

8 – Overall, the methods and results need greater explication.  The results should integrate this additional information.

9 - While the design is a basic survey, the investigation into technology is important. 

Author Response

Reviewer #2
We sincerely thank the reviewer for the valuable comments. All points have been carefully addressed, and the manuscript has been revised accordingly.

1. Abstract and Summary
Thank you for the positive evaluation. No further action required.
2. Inclusion of Public Attitudes
We appreciate the comment. This strengthens the rationale of the study.
3. Sampling, respondent characteristics, and protection of subjects
Additional methodological details have been added:
-    Sampling approach, recruitment process, and independence of respondents (independent vs. hired workers)
-    Economic context of participants
-    Ethical considerations, anonymity protection, and steps taken to avoid bias
-    A new paragraph describing the interview and survey administration process
These additions appear in the Methods section.
4. Presentation of p-values
All results tables now include:
-    Exact p-values
-    Significance stars (*, **, ***) for clarity
5. Capture vs. Aquaculture comparison
A dedicated comparison table has been added to the Results section (new Table: Group Comparison of Digital Experience, Device Use, and Adoption Intentions).
6. Clarification of negative correlations
The Results section has been revised to clarify interpretation:
Negative correlations indicate lower digital experience and device use among older respondents, capture fishers, and those in regions with limited infrastructure, rather than irrelevance of these factors. Additional explanation has been added.
7. Discussion structure
The Discussion has been reorganized into clear subsections to improve readability:
-    Behavioral Drivers
-    Structural Barriers
-    Sector Differences
Interpretation has been tightened and long paragraphs have been broken into shorter units.
8. Methods and Results need greater explication
Additional explanation has been incorporated into both sections:
-    More detail on variable construction
-    More explanation of regression models
-    Clear separation between “statistical results” and “interpretation”
9. Importance of the topic.
Thank you for recognizing the value of this research. The Introduction now includes a stronger statement on the relevance and policy importance of digital adoption in fisheries.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses an important and timely topic: the determinants of digital technology adoption among fishers and aquaculture farmers in South Korea. The study provides original survey data and offers relevant policy implications regarding digital transformation in the fisheries sector. The topic fits well within the scope of Sustainability.
However, several issues require substantial revision. These relate primarily to the alignment between research questions and hypotheses, the clarity and rigor of the statistical methods, and the strength and coherence of the Discussion section.
The study has substantial potential, and the dataset is valuable. However, methodological transparency, conceptual clarity, and a more disciplined interpretation of the findings are needed before the manuscript can be accepted.

Author Response

Reviewer #3
We thank the reviewer for the constructive and insightful comments. We have substantially revised the manuscript to improve conceptual clarity, methodological rigor, and the overall coherence of the Discussion section.

1. Alignment between Research Questions and Hypotheses
We clarified the linkages between the research questions, conceptual framework, and hypotheses. A revised subsection was added in the Introduction to explicitly map:
-    Research questions → Variables → Hypotheses → Analytical methods.
This strengthens the theoretical logic and ensures tighter alignment across the manuscript.
2. Clarity and Rigor of Statistical Methods
The Methods section has been expanded to include:
-    Detailed operational definitions of variables
-    Justification of non-parametric tests
-    Clear explanation of regression models
-    Assumptions, coding schemes, and diagnostic steps
-    Additional detail on sample selection, survey administration, and bias-prevention procedures
These revisions enhance transparency and methodological rigor.
3. Strength and Coherence of the Discussion Section
The Discussion has been fully reorganized into a more structured and disciplined interpretation:
-    Clear separation between results and interpretation
-    Integration with prior literature
-    Stronger explanation of unexpected findings
-    Avoidance of repetition
-    Clearer policy implications derived directly from analytical patterns
This improves conceptual depth and coherence.
4. Overall Contribution
We strengthened the narrative about the study’s novelty:
-    First integrated analysis in Korea examining structural + perceptual + demographic determinants of digital adoption across both capture fisheries and aquaculture
-    Direct policy relevance for digital transformation in small-scale fisheries
This enhancement appears in both the Introduction and the Abstract.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The esteemed authors have addressed all the concerns and issues I previously raised; no further comments are needed.