Exploring the Relationship between Internal Information Security, Response Cost, and Security Intention in Container Shipping

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors propose a study about the analysis of the relationsip between internal infomation security, response cost and security intention in container shipping.

The authors provide a study about research and developmente of cloud computing measurement platform for gear metrology.

The authors should be better described the novelties of their study with respect to existing ones. In particular, the author should discuss limitation and cons of the examined approaches. Furthermore, the authors should provide more details and discussion about the obtained results. The Discussion section also needs to be improved by analyzing the outcome of evaluation section.

I suggest to further analyze more recent approaches about the examined topics. In particular, I suggest the following papers to further investigate deception activities and influence diffusion strategies in the introduction section:

1) FORGE: a fake online repository generation engine for cyber deception. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.

2) Diffusion algorithms in multimedia social networks: A preliminary model. In IEEE/ACM International Conference, 2017; pp.844-851.

Finally, I suggest to perform a linguistic revision.

Author Response

• The authors propose a study about the analysis of the relationship between internal information security, response cost and security intention in container shipping. The authors provide a study about research and development of cloud computing measurement platform for gear metrology. The authors should be better described the novelties of their study with respect to existing ones. In particular, the author should discuss limitation and cons of the examined approaches. Furthermore, the authors should provide more details and discussion about the obtained results. The Discussion section also needs to be improved by analyzing the outcome of evaluation section.

Response:

Thanks for suggesting. We have improved and revised your suggestion as below:

The Novelties have been performed in Section one.

The limitation and cons have been improved in Section 5.4.

The results and discussion have been improved in Section 5.

• I suggest to further analyze more recent approaches about the examined topics. In particular, I suggest the following papers to further investigate deception activities and influence diffusion strategies in the introduction section:

Response:

We have clearly shown recent approaches in Section 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.

We have discussed the differences relating to research methods in Section one, lines 120-128.

We also cited the two references according to the review’s good advice.

1. FORGE: a fake online repository generation engine for cyber deception. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.
2. Diffusion algorithms in multimedia social networks: A preliminary model. In IEEE/ACM International Conference, 2017; pp.844-851.

• Finally, I suggest to perform a linguistic revision.

Response:

Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have performed a linguistic revision by a native English speaker.

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comment:

The work attempt to investigate how information security marketing and response cost influence employees’ information security intention in the shipping industry (container).

• Interesting topic, the paper clearly has interesting results to justify its publication.
• The writing, organisation and quality of communication is impressive. The authors clearly express their case and paid attention to the readability and proper use of language.
• Overview of literature and conceptual/theoretical development demonstrated an adequate understanding of the relevant literature. Appropriate range of literature sources were cited.
• The framework was adequately developed
• Findings and conclusions were well presented. Results were clearly analysed and the conclusions adequately tie together the other parts of the paper.

A few things to note:

• Watch out for complex words like “Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis are employed to identify every measure's construct's convergent and discriminant validity”- line 15-16. It takes away the readability level of your work.

What you are trying to say is that you measured theoretically similar concepts (using convergent validity evaluation) and that you ensured that non-overlapping factors do not overlay (discriminant validity).

Carefully disentangle that statement, if possible break into two sentences to make clear and concise delivery.  

• Statement like in line 118-120 “To the best of our knowledge, studies on the relationships between marketing management, awareness, and climate and the issue of information security are still lacking” are filling statement for budding researchers. You have already made a strong case for your research and have identified the scientific gap, move forward by just stating your objective and research question.
• Please do one last grammar or typo check i.e. line 123 “…effects have yet to be tested…” = “…effects are yet to be tested…”
• Please check that all fonts are similar

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Exploring the Relationship between Internal Information Security, Response Cost, and Security Intention in Container Shipping.

General Comment:

The work attempt to investigate how information security marketing and response cost influence employees’ information security intention in the shipping industry (container).

• Interesting topic, the paper clearly has interesting results to justify its publication.
• The writing, organisation and quality of communication is impressive. The authors clearly express their case and paid attention to the readability and proper use of language.
• Overview of literature and conceptual/theoretical development demonstrated an adequate understanding of the relevant literature. Appropriate range of literature sources were cited.
• The framework was adequately developed
• Findings and conclusions were well presented. Results were clearly analysed and the conclusions adequately tie together the other parts of the paper.

A few things to note:

• Watch out for complex words like “Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis are employed to identify every measure's construct's convergent and discriminant validity”- line 15-16. It takes away the readability level of your work.

What you are trying to say is that you measured theoretically similar concepts (using convergent validity evaluation) and that you ensured that non-overlapping factors do not overlay (discriminant validity).

Carefully disentangle that statement, if possible break into two sentences to make clear and concise delivery. 

Response:

Thanks a lot. We have modified the content in Abstract, lines 15-17.

• Statement like in line 118-120 “To the best of our knowledge, studies on the relationships between marketing management, awareness, and climate and the issue of information security are still lacking” are filling statement for budding researchers. You have already made a strong case for your research and have identified the scientific gap, move forward by just stating your objective and research question.

Response:

Thanks a lot. We have revised and amended it in Section 1, lines 136-140.

 

• Please do one last grammar or typo check i.e. line 123 “…effects have yet to be tested…” = “…effects are yet to be tested…”

Response:

Thanks. We have modified it in Section 1, line 128.

 

 

• Please check that all fonts are similar

Response:

We have done the final checking with many thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

In the introduction, the authors discuss the need for information security in marketing, logistics, and other systems. Finally, they concentrate on information awareness and provide very limited argumentation for its need. The introduction does not explain this study. Besides the general discussion, it is not clear what is the research problem and what are the research questions. The contribution of the paper is not presented. 

The authors define the hypotheses to check relationships among information security marketing, information security intention, response cost, information security awareness, and information security climate in the second section. The section ends with the research model, containing eight hypotheses. The research was conducted in the container shipping companies in Taiwan. The authors have received a good number of responses, including 285 out of 500 questionnaires sent. The results are analysed using the empirical hypothesis testing methods. In the end, the authors present the discussion and theoretical and practical implications.

The study is interesting, but the paper should be improved along with the following aspects:
-- Reduce/revise the introduction and concentrate on the motivation, explicit scope definition, presentation of the research problem/questions and overview of the contribution.
-- Once the research question is introduced - define the relationship between the research question(s) and hypothesis.
-- In the research presentation, explicitly differentiate between the theory (presentation of the research approach, used methods, and theory examples) and the actual study.
-- Define the section on the threats to validity.
-- Present the section on related studies.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper presents both a careful analysis of literature in the field, as well as a model that studies the relationship between Internal Information Security, Response Cost, and Security Intention in Container Shipping. It is very much information, but important, because the problem presented is a very complex one and a little hard to understand for a person without considerable background. 

Author Response

The paper presents both a careful analysis of literature in the field, as well as a model that studies the relationship between Internal Information Security, Response Cost, and Security Intention in Container Shipping. It is very much information, but important, because the problem presented is a very complex one and a little hard to understand for a person without considerable background. 

Response:

Thanks for reviewer’s comment.

We do our best that try to explain it more easily understanding in Section five.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think that the authors have addressed all my concerns