Factors That Affect Spatial Data Sharing in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some remarks:

Many basic terms are not referenced, e.g. data generator: generate what? what is the difference with data creator, data publisher. Is data consumer used in [2] the same level of user in this manuscript?     

The official cartography agency = the national mapping agency?

The rationale to link NPP to mySDI is not made clear. It is too long and not interesting. How SDI is embraced and used as a plaform mechanism for data sharing is more important to be read. Efforts that were in place and arguments to support must be strong (make senses and based on data).

References are not written properly, e,g, no 12 to 20: 12 is the authors not complete, 14: the source and publisher, page are missing, and inconsistencies of author names

The objective of this study is also not clear. What is the scientific contributions for the GI science community? What has been done by others and what remedy to offer in terms of SDI assessments for example? (method comparison). What is the practical contribution after exploration and assessment. Here it is clear that references on SDI assessment and evaluation used in the article are limited. Uses of PLS can be expanded more here.

The Qualitative study that includes Content analysis needs more argument and references to other works. How the decision was made. The methods were described and explained in a very short descriptions (lines 212 – 224 ?)

What organization theory used? What data sharing theory used (line 226)?

What novel hypothesis the authors meant?

In summary, the article is not ready for publication as the methods and the corresponding results are not clear in terms rationale, flow and descriptions of methods and results. Literature review is also an area that needs for significant improvements.

Also, it will be good to provide arguments and references I composing the sequence of hypothesis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1 ;

Thank you for your information,  all comments are fixed please read the attachment.

with best regards 

Qasim Hamakhurshid HamaMurad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

-abstract

* The summary of the methodology is not well organized in the abstract. The used variables and how the variables are chosen technically are not understandable from the abstract. 

* The novelty of the paper is not stated.

-Introduction

* The introduction part is full of historical evaluation of data and data-related institutions in Malaysia. First, this should be organized with subtitles. There is a lack of explanations why this full of information is given.

* There is a huge missing in related studies literature. 

* The last part of the introduction is a table listing data-sharing aspects with referencing. However, there should be some critical thinking paragraphs explaining how these aspects are extracted from those references.

-Methodology

 

* Adding sub-titles might be a good solution to organize this part which seems a bit disorganized in its current form.

* In-depth interviews and questionnaires should be explained well. Questionnaire questions should be presented in this part or referenced in the appendices if it is too long to add.

*Presenting the Lickert scale would be more effective to read if it were presented in table or figure form. 

*Partial Least Square and why the authors chose this one instead of other models should be explained in the methodology.

*How the data is processed should be explained in this part with the Smart PLS. A data flow might be helpful.

* The novelty of the methodology should be stated.

Results and Discussion

This part has methodology parts in it. It is better to move PLS, validity test explanations and the process flows in the methodology part. Only the process results and evaluation of the results could stay in this part.

Results and Discussion

This part has methodology parts in it. It is better to move each sub-title methodology parts such as PLS and validity test explanations. Sub-titles in this part present a data process flow that could be better figured in the methodology part. Only the results and evaluation of the results could stay in this part.

Table 5 has acronyms however they are not introduced before though they are estimable. DS1 (Data Share 1?) where is S for this factor since it is denoted as spatial data share before it should be fixed. 

The third main title and 3.3 sub-title are almost the same, at this point authors should be more creative to write sub-titles. 

-general

The authors should revise the language for the whole paper. There are disconnected sentences and grammatical errors. Acronyms should be introduced first and then used including the abstract part. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2;

Thank you for your information and advice.

All your comments are fixed, please read the attachments 

With best regards 

Qasim HamaKhurshid HamaMurad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Research that focuses on the problems of creating an SDI infrastructure for any country is always interesting and highlights the components of these problems. In the present study, the respected authors have followed a sound and scientifically documented methodology, which produces results. The research is also documented by the relatively recent and older literature that accompanies the article.

However, there are some elements that I think need improvement.

One issue arises from the crowd that was used to answer the questionnaire that the authors set out in their research (which, incidentally, should have been included as an appendix to the article). I think that there was a possibility of higher participation since the total number of services that contributed to the implementation of the SDI was 195 (if one sums the subpopulations of the services in lines 196-202, one will find this result), to increase the reliability of the questionnaire and better spatial dispersion of its queries. Related to the above there were also 15 respondents who participated in an in-depth interview (lines 205-206) as they met the criteria (assuming here that the criteria were that the interviewees should be government officials serving as staff or departmental leaders, as nothing else is mentioned). The question is also that: only 15 people were qualified to be interviewed?

Another point I would like to dwell on is tables 5 (Factor loading value of each factor to its latent variable in this study) and 6 (Cross loading value of each factor to its latent variable in this study) in which the factors are listed with their initials. It would be good if there was a note with an explanation of the factors included in these tables with their meaning (eg HR=Human resources, etc).

 

However, there is also a more essential question that echoes throughout the research work that has been done to compile this article. In the introduction to the article, the esteemed authors provide a historical overview of Malaysia's National Physical Plan (NPP), which with its successive changes and improvements had a time horizon to achieve its goals by 2020. The Plan certainly influenced any ongoing planning of the country's SDI. Therefore, this planning should have already produced results, given that today we are in the year 2022. I could not find in the text any comparative reference regarding the results of the NPP in the planning of the SDI until 2020 and those that are proposed in this article.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3;

Thank you for your information and advice.

All your comments are fixed, please read the attachments 

With best regards 

Qasim HamaKhurshid HamaMurad

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Some suggestions

1. Heading Back Ground should be Backhround

2. Size font in Figure 1 is not readable.

3. Fig 4: left part seems to be trimmed.

4. Table 1 with unnecessary lines

5. Table 3 with _ -

etc.

We advise authors to really check the details. Many parts require to be updated...

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer:

1- Fixed, line number 63

2-Fixed, 

All fixed 

Thank you for your advice. Please check the updated version MS Word file with track changes.

Reviewer 2 Report

I see the attempts for the amendments. However, still, there are some problems. The novelty of the paper is not directly stated anywhere in the paper. It should be stated in the abstract and in the methodology parts at least.  Here below is my responses to the revised version. 

Point 1: -abstract

 

*Still there is no statement in the abstract for the novelty of this paper. It is better to have a sentence like “this study is novel for that…”

 

 

Point 2: -Introduction

 

*Still there is a table (table 1 data sharing aspects) with a list of references but there is no explanation and critical thinking paragraphs about that.

 

 

Point 3: -Methodology

 

* The novelty of the methodology should be stated Fixed

How this is fixed where? I can not see any novelty explanation. Instead of writing fixed in these response forms, it is better to copy and paste the fixed or added sentences.

 

 

Point 4: -Results and Discussion

This part has methodology parts in it. It is better to move each sub-title methodology parts such as PLS and validity test explanations. Sub-titles in this part present a data process flow that could be better figured in the methodology part. Only the results and evaluation of the results could stay in this part. Fixed

 

4. Result and Discussion part kept as the same but with subtitles starting 3.1, 3.2 ..? This should be fixed properly as denoted above.

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer :

Point 1: The main contribution of this paper is an explanation of the novel methodology to study factors that affect spatial data sharing including a new qualitative analysis method through an interview with people concerned in this field, including engineers, technicians and academics, which was undertaken in Kuala Lumpur and a new methodology to identify the necessary approach that affects in spatial data sharing. 

Point 2: 

Table 1 Aspects concerning spatial data sharing practice in Malaysia.

Aspects concerning	References
(1) Institutional aspect	[20], [21], [22] [23], [24]
(2) Human Resource	[25]  [26] [27] [28]
(3) Legal aspect	[26] [27] [29]
(4) Technical and ICT aspects	[20], [21], [26]
(5) Spatial Data and standards	[20], [21], [26]

Point 3: Methodology Fixed 

While there is Covid-19, we follow the method of research methodology is implemented through two steps: qualitative research then quantitative research[30], in the region of Kuala Lumpur, seven spatial data sharing contributors were chosen as a case study and survey research sites, 15 respondents participated in an in-depth interview for qualitative analysis, while 83 participated in a questionnaire poll for quantitative analysis[31]. 

Point 4: Thank you for your notes and Advice all fixed please read an updated version with track changes.

With best regards 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

From the improved edition of this interesting article, I found that the esteemed authors have followed the suggestions I had given them when revising the first edition.

Necessary answers were given to those points where there was ambiguity and the methodology of the article was further improved.

The above reasons lead me to believe that this article can now be published as is.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer :

Thank you for your supporting. Please check the updated Word file with track changes. 

With best regards