Sustainable Technological Incorporation in Aquaculture: Attitudinal and Motivational Perceptions of Entrepreneurs in the Northwest Region of Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The topic of the article is topical and interesting. First of all, I would like to address some aspects related to the form of the article. Thus, a review of the technical editing is necessary. For example, extra periods (line 81), lower case at the beginning of the sentence (line 84), inconsistency (with period and without period, lines 100 and 101), period after the title 2.1. (line 107), empty brackets (lines 127, 147), paragraphs from line 134 to line 143 are identical to those from lines 124-133, line 167 mentions 109 questionnaires used. Figure 1 is not of interest. A table with the structure of the resulting sample would be more appropriate, it would be easier to follow. The main problem concerns the quality of the results obtained and the discussions based on these results. The statistical presentation of the research results is merely descriptive, with only some weights calculated. In the case of motivational attitudes, for example, it is only a simple graph. It would be interesting to see at least some correlations of these motivational attitudes with the influencing factors (at least the demographic variables). As well as the other figures. The structure of the paper is unclear. For example, there is no section devoted to the literature review, which is "mixed" with some of the research findings. Then there is no section on the findings and discussion that relates to the results of the research of the 108 respondents. As for the results, they are very brief and only provide some weighting of the responses received. The authors should try to develop a model that identifies the factors that influence the attitude and motivation of entrepreneurs. Otherwise, the study is of no practical or theoretical significance. The authors could try to use SEM as the value for consistency is above 0.7. The conclusions are theoretical in nature and bring nothing new to the researched field. Also, the practical implications and limitations are missing. I think the article could be sent back for evaluation after a proper statistical processing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, corrections were made to the article, considering your observations and suggestions. In the attached file you can see the changes made to the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for the opportunity to review the article, Please note the following:

1)      The topic seems interesting nevertheless; the write up of the article and the structure of it look simple and is not up to the level of the journal.

2)      The introduction section is poorly written, has fewer references and has weak arguments, it does not clearly articulate the research problem and available gap; it also does not explain the motive behind study or context of the study.

3)      Research methodology needs to be detailed with more explanation to allow other researchers replicate the method used.

4)      Discussion and results should not be mixed together, as they both have different objectives.

5)      There is no theoretical and practical implication section, it should be provided as a separate section.

6)      There is no paragraph that shows the organization of the article.

7)      Limitations and future studies are absent.

8)      Authors at least need to provide some correlational tests

 

All the best

Author Response

Estimado revisor, se realizaron correcciones al artículo considerando sus observaciones y sugerencias. En el archivo adjunto podéis ver los cambios realizados en el artículo.

Muchas gracias por tomarse el tiempo de revisar este manuscrito.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This reviewer would like to thank this journal and the authors for the opportunity to submit a review report on this manuscript.

This manuscript addresses an important topic, that of aquaculture, sustainability and technology in Mexico. This reviewer perceives that the manuscript has academic merit, and that the main merit mainly relates to documenting the manuscript’s topic in a region of Mexico.

This reviewer would like to share the following comments and a question. The comments and the question provide the authors with some hints that can be considered when further improving the manuscript.

Format comments: The formatting of the manuscript can likely be improved. Here four examples illustrate regarding: colour of font, English language, and repeated fragment.

Colour of font:

In the PDF file that this reviewer had access to, two font colours are used in the text: black and red. For example:

Lines 2 – 4: The title of the manuscript has 7 words in black font (i.e., and motivational, of, in the, of Mexico); the rest of the title shows black font.

English language needing improvement.

Example: (in the fragment quoted here below: Could the first sentence likely end after the fragment “levels,”?)

Lines 326 – 329: “Countries such as Norway have implemented government policies focused on the technological improvement of aquaculture activities with high technological levels, in global contexts, the sector has maintained a significant growth rate in recent decades but has been limited in only a few countries.”

Repeated fragment:

Lines 125 to 132, and lines 135 to 143.

 

Numbers in figures 1 - 7

Likely there is no need to include all decimal digits. Likely the values can be round up.

 

One Question:

Could the authors clarify whether all the data that is mentioned in section 2 “Materials and methods is mentioned in section 3 “Results are discussion”?

For example: Lines 312 – 314 refers to “89.81% of the producers affirm that, through links with research centres in biotechnological exploitation, it will be possible to achieve innovation objectives in aquaculture.”

Is that 89% in one of the figures 1 – 6? Is there data that is not included in the figures or somewhere else in section 3?

This reviewer thanks the authors in advance for considering the above comments and question, and wishes the authors all success in the review process of this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In the other part of the review, this reviewer has indicated that there is value in improving the English-language of this version of the manuscript. One example of manuscript fragment is provided. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, your observations are very valuable and were attended to in a timely manner.
Thank you very much for your support

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript complies with the editorial standards of the journal, has originality and the conclusions coincide with the results of the research.

Specific gap of the field addressed by the paper

The specific gap addressed by the paper is the lack of detailed understanding of the attitudinal and motivational context of aquaculture farmers in northwestern Mexico towards technological innovation. Until now, there was a lack of studies that evaluated how producers' perceptions and attitudes affect the adoption of new technologies and the implementation of sustainable practices. This research fills that gap by providing empirical data on these aspects, identifying the key areas that facilitate or hinder innovation, and highlighting the need for comprehensive support strategies and policies that involve all relevant stakeholders in the aquaculture sector.

 

Specific improvements related to methodology

Expanding the sample size: Although 108 surveys were used, increasing the sample size could improve the representativeness of the results and provide a more complete picture of attitudes and motivations in the region.

 Diversifying the sample: Ensure that the sample includes a wider variety of aquaculture producers of different sizes and types of operations to better reflect the diversity of the sector.

 More rigorous sampling methods: Implement more stringent sampling methods, such as stratified sampling, to ensure that producers from all relevant geographic areas and subsectors are included.

 Additional validation of scales: Although the McDonald's Omega method was used, additional validation, such as confirmatory factor analysis, would be beneficial to ensure the robustness and validity of the scales used.

 

Complementary qualitative analysis: Incorporate qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, to gain a deeper understanding of perceptions and motivations that may not be fully captured by surveys.

Longitudinal follow-up: Consider a longitudinal design to observe changes in attitudes and motivations over time, which could provide more dynamic and useful information for policy formulation.

In summary, the conclusions of the study are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented, as they are based on a rigorous analysis of quantitative and qualitative data, supported by adequate statistical tools and a clear understanding of the challenges and needs of the aquaculture sector in northwestern Mexico.

 

Author Response

In response to the suggestion to expand the sample, random sampling was employed, and the sample size was calculated under the assumption of normality with a 95% confidence interval, resulting in a size of 108, which is deemed acceptable according to the literature. While increasing the sample size might enhance the confidence level as the reviewer suggested, it would also increase the survey costs without significantly altering the results.

Regarding sample diversification, the sampling method was random, which implicitly addresses the reviewer's concern. Although stratified sampling could systematically consider subjects in an established order, for this exploratory study, random sampling was preferred due to the uniformity of parameters like educational level.

In response to concerns about scale validation, Cronbach's alpha and factor analysis were included to ensure the scales' robustness and validity, as well as to examine the relationship between items and their contribution to the construct and its subcategories.

 

Qualitative methods such as in-depth interviews or focus groups will be used in a supplementary study focused on public policy design. This follow-up study aims to assess attitude and motivation conditions as a second step.

Regarding longitudinal follow-up, it will be addressed in the public policy development phase, which is beyond the scope of this study, which aims to evaluate attitudes and motivations related to the construct and its subcategories.

Additional Comments:

In response to reviewers' feedback, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was incorporated, including validation tests such as histograms with statistical distribution moments and correlation graphs, along with the text of each of the 24 items. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was also included to validate the results found with other initially applied coefficients.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the article to a certain extent, but the level of statistical processing remains modest. It would therefore be necessary to clarify the aspects described below.

What items did the authors use to define the attitudinal and motivational perceptions of entrepreneurs? In their response to the reviewer's suggestions, the authors state that "attitude and motivation is a theoretical construct that does not admit a direct quantitative measurement". It is precisely for this reason that it is necessary to specify the items they used to construct the variables of the study (attitude and motivation).

Why did the authors feel it necessary to indicate with a figure "educational level of the study target population"? Are the percentages also commented on in the text? What does Figure 2 add and why was exactly this socio-demographic variable chosen for a graphical representation?

The results of the study are also summarized in a presentation of the weighting of the responses received. Figures 3,5,6,7,8, 9, and 10 graphically show some percentages that also appear in the text. The Likert scale allows for advanced statistical processing and not just the stringing together of percentages of the responses received.

The discussion section relies too little on the research findings and could be written independently of the research conducted.

The fact that: "More than 50% of the sampled universe agrees with the incorporation of technology into competitive and sustainable production processes, so that 97.2% accept technological innovation as an integral part of aquaculture processes. 71.30% of the fish farmers agree that there are programs for the dissemination and transfer of aquaculture technology” does not represent a conclusion of much practical value.

The study does not provide more knowledge and the practical benefits are modest.

„Research Limitations" provides no information about the actual limitations of the study.

Author Response

The study examines the construct and its two subcategories. The primary construct is assessed with 24 items, divided into the innovation and competitiveness subcategory (items 1 to 16, 18 and 24) and the support programs subcategory (items 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23).

Figure 2 highlights educational level as a critical parameter to prevent bias due to misunderstandings of the concepts in the items.

In response to the reviewer's feedback, advanced analysis using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Cronbach's alpha was performed. These procedures evaluate the relationship between the items and their contribution to the construct and its subcategories.

The findings have significant practical implications, as effective public policies or management of innovative technological resources require the motivation and positive attitude of the main actors in the aquaculture sector. The lack of these considerations has led to the failure or abandonment of crucial technological impact projects in Mexico due to a lack of attitude and motivation.

The study demonstrates that the items used to assess the construct and its subcategories are consistent and correlated, ensuring the validity of the results. These findings are practically beneficial as they are essential for the development of public policies or management of natural resources.

However, the study's limitations include that the results do not directly result in a physical change in the world but serve as a necessary tool to facilitate more successful change.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

satisfied 

Author Response

The English in the article was revised again

In response to reviewers' feedback, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was incorporated, including validation tests such as histograms with statistical distribution moments and correlation graphs, along with the text of each of the 24 items. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was also included to validate the results found with other initially applied coefficients.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this second review of the manuscript, this reviewer would like to thank this journal and the authors for the opportunity to submit a review report on this revised manuscript.

The manuscript has improved after the revision by the authors. The revised manuscript enables the reader to better come across the manuscript’s academic merit.

The key remaining comment of this reviewer is that the English language in the revised manuscript would benefit from a more thorough rechecking and further improvement.

This reviewer thanks the authors and wishes all success in the further steps of the review process of this manuscript.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In this second review of the manuscript, this reviewer would like to thank this journal and the authors for the opportunity to submit a review report on this revised manuscript.

The manuscript has improved after the revision by the authors. The revised manuscript enables the reader to better come across the manuscript’s academic merit.

The key remaining comment of this reviewer is that the English language in the revised manuscript would benefit from a more thorough rechecking and further improvement.

This reviewer thanks the authors and wishes all success in the further steps of the review process of this manuscript.

Author Response

The English in the article was revised again

In response to reviewers' feedback, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was incorporated, including validation tests such as histograms with statistical distribution moments and correlation graphs, along with the text of each of the 24 items. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was also included to validate the results found with other initially applied coefficients.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper, but some problems still need to be solved.

For example, a sentence in the abstract starts in line 26 and ends in line 34. I think a rewrite is necessary.

Similarly, the sentence from 98 to 101 is constructed incorrectly and the predicate is missing.

Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 can be replaced by tables. This would be much more elegant and easier to follow. These repetitive figures give the impression of a student project.

The Likert scale is still not sufficiently utilized.

How were the items selected/constructed, and which references were used?

The discussion section should point out the implications of the results obtained in correlation with those of other studies. In the current form of the paper, the discussion section seems to be the literature review section.

The conclusions should not repeat the results already presented in the text but emphasize the main implications of these results. The reference to Cronbach alfa in the conclusions section is also pointless.

More attention needs to be paid to clarity of expression, technical editing, and grammatical correctness.

Author Response

For example, a sentence in the abstract starts in line 26 and ends in line 34. I think a rewrite is necessary.

Lines 26 to 34 of the abstract were revised.

Similarly, the sentence from 98 to 101 is constructed incorrectly and the predicate is missing.

Lines 98 to 101 have been rewritten.

Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 can be replaced by tables. This would be much more elegant and easier to follow. These repetitive figures give the impression of a student project.

Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were replaced by tables.

The Likert scale is still not sufficiently utilized.

Work was carried out in accordance with the investigation

How were the items selected/constructed, and which references were used?

The guidelines followed for the preparation of the items are indicated.

The discussion section should point out the implications of the results obtained in correlation with those of other studies. In the current form of the paper, the discussion section seems to be the literature review section.

The discussion subsections have been revised, an opening paragraph has been included in each of them.

The conclusions should not repeat the results already presented in the text but emphasize the main implications of these results. The reference to Cronbach alfa in the conclusions section is also pointless.

In the conclusion, the reference to Cronbach was deleted.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on the data collected, it is noted that no type of intervention was carried out with the interviewees.

I suggest removing the word attitudinal from the title, since in data collection, no attitude is applied for evaluation. Except for the attitude of answering questions.

 Therefore, I suggest that the title is more related to the state of the art of sustainability and technologies developed in aquaculture.

 If possible, I suggest incorporating questions relating to the financial capacity of the interviewed enterprises, and thus, directing the possible technologies to be incorporated, to increase production capacity.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No serious problems were observed that would compromise the quality of the english writing in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Letter to Authors
sustainability-2857711-v1
Attitude and motivational profiles for the integration of sustainable technologies in aquaculture in the Northwest of Mexico
Alejandro Urias-Camacho, Hector J. Peinado Guevara, Gustavo A. Rodriguez-Montes de Oca, Victor M. Peinado-Guevara, Jaime Herrera-Barrientos, Mary Cruz Sanchez Alcalde. Griselda K. Gonzalez-Felix


240222


Dear authors,
Your MS is a mess. Extensive English editing is definitely necessary. In addition, your MS is not a showcase of long, wordy, verbose, awkward, complex, yet incomplete sentences. Break those tedious long sentences into pieces of complete items. Delete redundant phrases. Extensive editing of your long, wordy, verbose, awkward and complex writing style by a professional science editor is absolutely necessary. I am sorry I stopped reading because all sentences must be rewritten.


L17
in the processes of technological inclusion under sustainable ways (grammar) -> the processes of technological inclusion in sustainable ways

L21
109 surveys were applied ?? -> in which 109 surveys were applied ?
L145 tells respondents=108.

L23
What is "a"? an ω ?
It was discovered that -> delete

L24
emphasize -> emphasized
It WAS true but it IS unclear at present.

L25
doing so (unclear) -> new technologies

L31
employment; among -> employment. Among (break sentence)

L37
producers, and this has been possible because -> producers.

L40
cultivation [3]; a space in which, in 2021, 287,000 tons were achieved -> cultivation [3]. In 2021, production of 287,000 tons were achieved in these areas.
{4] -> [4]

L42
country [5]; its -> country [5]. Its

L43
is that it is the area with -> stands on
productivity, thanks -> productivity. Thanks

L45
which is why -> delete

L47
Carrazco & Leon [7] point out that -> delete
A merit of numbered citation is to save readers' short term memory spaces when reading. Readers can go straightforward through the story-flow without outflow of author names [and published years]. In this case the reference can be cited at the end of this sentence.

L48
years, stemming from different factors such as: the -> years [7].

L50
that make -> have made

L51
productivity on farms, which has led producers to make -> productivity. Farmers are confronted to make

L52
reverse (does not make sense) -> remove

L57
Getting implemented in various ways, .. with respect to public policies [9]. (not a complete sentence) -> delete

L60
In this sense -> delete

L61
in this sector (does not make sense) -> delete
results to make the most of the potential of this activity (wordy) -> the best results

L64
Zayas Barreras [10], states that -> delete
You may cite the reference at the end.

L66
Porter [11], states that -> delete
You may cite the reference at the end.

L68
programmes, which are granted by (wordy) -> programmes by

L69
institutions and their -> institutions. Their

L70
technologies, capitalization -> technologies and capitalization
boost productivity .. in the different areas (redundant) -> delete

L73
Carrazco and Leon [7] 73 and de la Torre et al. [14] point out that -> delete
You may cite the references at the end.

L75
under the approach of the three pillars social, environmental, and economic (wordy) -> from social, environmental, and economic approaches

L76
[15], contributing -> [15]. These approaches contribute

L79
Continue to the previous paragraph.
in aquaculture -> delete

L90
innovation; it -> innovation. It

L89-92
Does not make sense. Delete.

L93
To understand the attitudinal and motivational aspects of sustainable technological incorporation in aquaculture production processes (redundant) -> delete

L94
a survey -> A questionair survey
which considers the subjective and objective aspects of the information, allowing us (wordy) -> delete

L98-102
Does not make sense. Delete.

L103
considering that it sought (wordy) -> delete

L104
determine -> quantify
with respect to the study variables (wordy) -> delete

L105
, divided into -> with
sections, the first of which -> sections. The first section

L106
seeks to identify aspects related to (wordy) -> gathers

L108
and, using a Likert scale, the variable of motivation and attitude towards innovation in aquaculture is analyzed (not a complete sentence) -> to gather motivation and attitude towards innovation in aquaculture using Likert scales

L111
the first group, -> (1)
, comprises concepts related to (wordy) -> for

L112
the productive and sustainable process (wordy) -> productivity and sustainability

L113
The second group focuses on the -> (2)

L130
Under this universe, -> delete
the -> A
proposed by Torres et al. -> delete
You may cite the references at the end.

L148
reliability [24], therefore -> reliability [24]. Therefore

L152
program, finding that -> program.

L153
a p<0.05 -> p<0.05
A number of p's exsisted equal to the number of cases.

L160
questionnaire, in which the Likert scale was used, (wordy) -> Likert scaled questionnaire

L161
, with the freely available program (wordy) -> using
which is an open source project with structural support from the University of Amsterdam -> delete

L162-164
[25] finding a ω=0.773 .. the items are consistent. -> [25]. ω was 0.773 indicating the items are consistent according to a previous study [25] where the value higher than 0.7 is optimum.

I am sorry I stopped reading. You must completely rewrite the following parts with readable English sentences with short, clear, direct, strong and straightforward phrases. You must learn ABC of how to write. I could not evaluate scientific contents of your MS.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This MS is a mess.