Real-Time Military Security Index Calculation Model Using Big Data Analytics: The Case of South Korea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The submitted text deals with an interesting topic in an original way. A minor shortcoming is the sources used, which could have been more up-to-date and based on new theoretical and practical bases.
Author Response
Comprehensive Answers
We would like to thank the reviewers for the thorough review of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of the manuscript. In particular, we would like to express our gratitude for providing detailed advice so that the structure of our study can be fully supplemented.
We are uploading an updated manuscript with brown highlighting indicating changes (Supplementary Material for Review)
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: The submitted text deals with an interesting topic in an original way. A minor shortcoming is the sources used, which could have been more up-to-date and based on new theoretical and practical bases.
Response 1: Ten references were added for proper reference. (reference 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 23)
Thank you very much for the review and I will do my best if you let me know about the additional modifications.
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall, I like the premise behind this article- the idea being the quantification of real-time security threats. However, I think the author(s) need to make some serious improvements before this manuscript is publishable.
First, better justify the selection of news sources, and why rely only on print journalism.
Second, why include terrorism in the measure? The rest of the paper is about interstate threat, or threats from neighbors, rather than intrastrate threats, like terrorism or civil war. Is the terrorism in this measure only transnational terrorism? Is it's source one of the other countries discussed in the paper, or elsewhere? It doesn't seem to fit unless that's the case.
Third, there are significant English language issues.
Finally, and most importantly, what novel things does this tell us? How can this be used in future papers empirically? The authors should discuss this, at the bare minimum, but should also examine some implications of the increased threat they can find using this measure. Did Korea increase mobilization? Did they alter spending patterns? These are just examples, but the authors should do something to demonstrate the utility of this measure.
Overall, as I said, I like the idea of this paper, but the execution needs substantial improvement. I hope the editors allow the authors an opportunity to make substantial revisions and resubmit.
Author Response
Comprehensive Answers
We would like to thank the reviewers for the thorough review of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of the manuscript. In particular, we would like to express our gratitude for providing detailed advice so that the structure of our study can be fully supplemented.
We are uploading an updated manuscript with brown highlighting indicating changes (Supplementary Material for Review), and We got an English correction for my paper from an expert.
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: First, better justify the selection of news sources, and why rely only on print journalism.
Response 1: The selection of news sources is described in line 356-362 and added line 191-195, 334-339 to explain the importance of news. Among the selected broadcasting media, three broadcasters are included except for print journalism in Table 3.2.
Point 2: Second, why include terrorism in the measure? The rest of the paper is about interstate threat, or threats from neighbors, rather than intrastrate threats, like terrorism or civil war. Is the terrorism in this measure only transnational terrorism? Is it's source one of the other countries discussed in the paper, or elsewhere? It doesn't seem to fit unless that's the case.
Response 2: An additional explanation was added to line 146-155 as to why terrorism is included in the calculation of the military security index. and Korea Terrorism Information Center's Domestic terrorism alerts evaluate the risk and timing of internal and external terrorism. line 424
Point 3: Third, there are significant English language issues.
Response 3: We got an English correction for my paper from an expert.
Point 4: Finally, and most importantly, what novel things does this tell us? How can this be used in future papers empirically? The authors should discuss this, at the bare minimum, but should also examine some implications of the increased threat they can find using this measure. Did Korea increase mobilization? Did they alter spending patterns? These are just examples, but the authors should do something to demonstrate the utility of this measure.
Response 4: The conclusion was extended to comment on what new things the paper tells and how it can be used empirically. (line 92-113, 555-613) Meanwhile, military measures and civilian movements related to the increase or decrease of threats were limited in confirmation. Most of the military measures were limited in security as they were military data, and in the case of South Korea, the long-term division situation is serious, so even if North Korea provokes, the consumption pattern does not change significantly. In fact, one reason is that this index was created to resolve this security insensitivity.
Thank you very much for the review and I will do my best if you let me know about the additional modifications.
Reviewer 3 Report
I am convinced that this article carries sufficient novum and wish to support its publication, but after a serious revision along the following lines:
- I find the relevant literature very scarce, in particular, with regard to Geopolitics, especially Critical Geopolitics. Please, provide a proper literature review! Also, published research pieces using such indexes and similar methodologies need to be clearly identified and critically reflected upon.
- I missed a clear overview of the structure of your paper. Probably, it would be good to have yet another paragraph at the end of your Introduction about how you proceed with your analysis and argumentation.
- What is/are your well-articulated research question/s? How are they answered in the Conclusion?
- What are/were the challenges to your research? And the potential drawbacks?
- How are the indexes you are using constructed? Probably, in your methodology section, you should also talk about this briefly.
line 98: be more cautious with such statements: “The term geopolitics, mainly used by the public,…” Why the public only? This is not true. Do you mean public discourse? Political discourse? Again widely used in political discourse across the globe? That could probably be more accurate.
Table 3.3 is not properly edited as there are lines squeezed.
Same with Table 3.4.
Author Response
Comprehensive Answers
We would like to thank the reviewers for the thorough review of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of the manuscript. In particular, we would like to express our gratitude for providing detailed advice so that the structure of our study can be fully supplemented.
We are uploading an updated manuscript with brown highlighting indicating changes (Supplementary Material for Review), and We got an English correction for my paper from an expert.
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: I find the relevant literature very scarce, in particular, with regard to Geopolitics, especially Critical Geopolitics. Please, provide a proper literature review! Also, published research pieces using such indexes and similar methodologies need to be clearly identified and critically reflected upon.
Response 1: Ten references were added for proper reference. (reference 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 17, 23)
Point 2: I missed a clear overview of the structure of your paper. Probably, it would be good to have yet another paragraph at the end of your Introduction about how you proceed with your analysis and argumentation.
Response 2: To supplement the structure of the paper, a paragraph was added to the introduction part, and in addition, the structure of the paper was changed so that the Study on the Peace index of Korean Peninsula, Theoretical Background of Quantitative Military Security Analysis could be located under Scope and method of research. Through these structural changes, it was possible to improve the thesis structure. (line 92-119) (line 120) (line 164-189) (line 190-199)
Point 3: What is/are your well-articulated research question/s? How are they answered in the Conclusion?
Response 3: Could we develop quantitative indicators that can measure not only North Korea but also China, Japan, and Russia, as well as timely and new threats (terrorism and cyber security)? is our paper's well-articulated research question. (added line 92-119) The answers to the research questions were included in part Summary of Contribution of the conclusion.(added line 555-589)
Point 4: What are/were the challenges to your research? And the potential drawbacks?
Response 4: Among the conclusions of the paper, the Future Work part was added, and it mentions the disappointing part of the index, what additional research should be conducted in the future, and what difficulties there are. (line 590-613)
Point 5: How are the indexes you are using constructed? Probably, in your methodology section, you should also talk about this briefly.
Response 5: At the beginning of the description of the military security index calculation model, we added an additional description of how the final index calculation is constructed. (line 294-297)
Point 6: line 98: be more cautious with such statements: “The term geopolitics, mainly used by the public,…” Why the public only? This is not true. Do you mean public discourse? Political discourse? Again widely used in political discourse across the globe? That could probably be more accurate.
Response 6: we changed public to universally used.
Point 7: Table 3.3 is not properly edited as there are lines squeezed. Same with Table 3.4.
Response 7: Correctly changed the positions in Tables 3.3 and 3.4.
Thank you very much for the review and I will do my best if you let me know about the additional modifications.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
This is overall an excellent revision, and the authors have adequately answered all comments/suggestions from the previous version in the revised manuscript and/or the response memo. I recommend acceptance for publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
I was happy to see that all my previous comments were seriously considered and the author has significantly improved the paper. I can now support accepting it for publication.
