GMDSS Equipment Usage: Seafarers’ Experience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

This article is too simple and does not bring any novelties. The methodology is simple, it lacks reliability analysis, etc. The tables are also too simple, it would be better to summarize the answers in few graphs. It lacks the state of the art research in the field. A similar analysis of the GMDSS system is done in references 6, 7, 9, and 10.

However, the article is good for the conference proceedings but does not reach the scientific level expected for a publication in JMSE.

I suggest expanding the research, perhaps into ergonomics, marine casualty analysis, etc.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for a review and your comments.

Please find the answers to your comments below.

"This article is too simple and does not bring any novelties."
Indeed, this article is simple, but sometimes simple research can provide very useful answers to research questions. We conducted a quantitative and qualitative research on the frequency of use of each individual GMDSS device, as well as on the opinion of seafarers on the modernization of the entire system. And we got measurable results in terms of the average frequency of use of each individual device during one watch of the experienced OOW’s.

"The methodology is simple, it lacks reliability analysis, etc."
In the new version of the paper, we improved the Methodology section, in order to better emphasize the methodological approach to our research. As for the reliability analysis, it is often used to check the consistency of questions in a questionnaire. Each of our research questions examines a different device and therefore we felt that reliability analysis would not provide some useful information, taking into account the fact that there are only 10 questions with 112 observations.

"The tables are also too simple, it would be better to summarize the answers in a few graphs."
Precisely because of the simplicity of the research, graphs represent numerical variables, i.e. frequency tables. And that’s the main reason why we wanted to use a single graph for each question analysis.

"It lacks the state of the art research in the field."
We investigated the use of the GMDSS devices, to show that its modernization is needed, and thus to justify the state of the art researches (VDES applications, NAVDAT applications, future satellite services, etc.). We have stated this in the Discussion and Conclusions sections.

"A similar analysis of the GMDSS system is done in references 6, 7, 9, and 10."
During the analysis of each individual question, we addressed the correlation with the researches conducted in references [6] and [7], precisely to show the justification of our research. The difference is: we accurately quantified the average device usage, while the authors in these researches used only qualitative methods (which were not even shown).

"However, the article is good for the conference proceedings but does not reach the scientific level expected for a publication in JMSE."
Thank you for the comment. Please if you would be so kind and explain to us in more detail why our work does not reach the scientific level expected for a publication in JMSE?

"I suggest expanding the research, perhaps into ergonomics, marine casualty analysis, etc."
Thank you for your suggestion. We will endeavor to include ergonomics and marine casualty analysis in our next researches, as well as to develop a Technology Acceptance Model.

Reviewer 2 Report

It would have been interesting to correlate the data obtained with the different areas of GMDSS (A1 - A4) to understand the use of the different devices in different areas.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the review and your suggestion. We agree that it would be interesting to correlate the obtained survey results with different GMDSS sea areas. This is also one of our further researches. In this paper, we wanted to present only the results of the survey on the frequency of use of each GMDSS device, regardless of the sea area.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

thank you very much for your detailed reply. While the manuscript is interesting and a good read, the results presented are commonly known facts. The manuscript does not represent a scientific contribution and does not reach the scientific level expected for a publication in JMSE when compared to recently published articles.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your additional comments.

The results presented in our manuscript are indeed commonly known facts among the seafarers, and yet nothing is changed onboard ships regarding the obsolete GMDSS equipment.

Best regards

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper analyses the use of GMDSS devices on ships in international voyage (SOLAS ships). The research aimed to confirm whether seafarers believe that the GMDSS system (or part of it) should be modernized or not; and prove that some GMDSS devices are still necessary and frequently used onboard ships. The main research method was a questionnaire survey aimed at experienced officers. The survey analysis results show that VHF, NATEX, EGC, DSC, and MF /HF radios are almost unused on board. Moreover, more than 80% of the respondents believe that GMDSS needs to be modernized.

Comments:

1. The literature review should be more extensive. I don't see the gap in the literature that you are trying to fill with this survey. The literature review should be improved and redesigned. 
2. It was pointed out that the purpose of this research was to gather and analyze information on how often GMDSS devices are used and if upgrading is needed. They confirmed your hypothesis, but I don't see any significant results there. Other authors you mentioned (IMO, MSC, [5], [7]) have also indicated that GMDSS modernization is needed. So, what difference has your research made? What is new about your research findings? Consider what your findings are, how your findings can help survey seafarers. Point out what more should be done, something for future research. 
3. For the research methodology, you used a questionnaire and a Likert scale. There should be more explanation of what Likert scale structure (5 points, 7 points, or 9 points) you used (text-based or numbered). 
4. There are too many bar graphs in the paper. In my opinion, you should only graph the most important results.
5. You have analyzed the data from the survey, but you have not analyzed the survey. The consistency cheque of the responses and the consensus analysis (how accurate are the results) should be done. Please use some methods to analyze the survey (whether the responses are consistent). Make this method (survey) more meaningful; otherwise, this paper is only good enough for a conference paper.
6. You talked about some correlations between responses. What actually is the correlation between some answers, is there any? Perhaps you could do a correlation analysis to see how some items correlate with each other (e.g., age of seafarers and desire for an automatic electronic radio).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your additional review and comments.

Please find the answers to your comments below.

„1. The literature review should be more extensive. I don't see the gap in the literature that you are trying to fill with this survey. The literature review should be improved and redesigned.“

There is a scarce research in general on the subject of the GMDSS. Therefore, we could not add and analyze more literature than has already been done. However, in the Introduction section we described the previous research in more detail and listed their main shortcomings that we wanted to compensate with our research.

„2. It was pointed out that the purpose of this research was to gather and analyze information on how often GMDSS devices are used and if upgrading is needed. They confirmed your hypothesis, but I don't see any significant results there. Other authors you mentioned (IMO, MSC, [5], [7]) have also indicated that GMDSS modernization is needed. So, what difference has your research made? What is new about your research findings? Consider what your findings are, how your findings can help survey seafarers. Point out what more should be done, something for future research.“

We conducted a quantitative and qualitative research on the frequency of use of each individual GMDSS device, as well as on the opinion of seafarers on the modernization of the entire system. And we got measurable results in terms of the average frequency of use of each individual device during one watch of the experienced OOW’s. We wanted to compare the results of our survey with the previous researches (different samples of the respondents), as it is mentioned in the last sentence of the Methodology section. Additionally, in the Conclusions section, we have added a paragraph indicating what are the differences between our and previous studies. The last paragraph of the manuscript indicates what could be done for future research.

„3. For the research methodology, you used a questionnaire and a Likert scale. There should be more explanation of what Likert scale structure (5 points, 7 points, or 9 points) you used (text-based or numbered).„

In the Methodology section, the structure of the answers (indicators) offered in each question (item) of the survey is now described in detail.

„4. There are too many bar graphs in the paper. In my opinion, you should only graph the most important results.“

We wanted to emphasize the frequency of use of each individual GMDSS device, and for this reason we used a single graph for each question analysis.

„5. You have analyzed the data from the survey, but you have not analyzed the survey. The consistency cheque of the responses and the consensus analysis (how accurate are the results) should be done. Please use some methods to analyze the survey (whether the responses are consistent). Make this method (survey) more meaningful; otherwise, this paper is only good enough for a conference paper.

6. You talked about some correlations between responses. What actually is the correlation between some answers, is there any? Perhaps you could do a correlation analysis to see how some items correlate with each other (e.g., age of seafarers and desire for an automatic electronic radio).“

We have added a new subsection 3.11. Reliability and correlation analyses of the survey questions and answers, in which the performed reliability and correlation analyses of the survey are described.