The aticle is fully downloadable without payment or registration as far as i can see here - https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Dangseong-fortress%3A-archaeological-evidence-of-the-Kidong-Kiryong/a5a212074ce69f2824aa1b38b4803c91a0432a7c

It doesn't discuss the appropriateness or otherwise of the use of the term "Eastern Silk Road" (or "East Asian Silk road") but just takes it as a "given" that the interactions it describes should be so named. No one is doubting/opposing the validity of understanding, preserving, and even recognising via WHS inscription, such tangible heritage as remains of such interactions - just whether the expansive use of the term "Silk Road" (or similar) to encompass all such interactions across vast swathes of history and geography is either appropriate or useful! "Naming something gives you control over it....."

Thanks for the link, after reading the text it certainly aligns with much of the scholarship out of South Korea that accepts the terminology 'Silk Road' or 'Silk Route' and its association / connection with Korea. This seems to be widely adopted throughout the country, Nationalist-centric voices within Korea view Silla's connection to the Silk Road as evidence of its greatness and power. Much of the mainstream academia in Korea (from my own, albeit limited reading), view the Silk Road term as an acceptable description of the two-way trade and cultural exchange between various Korean kingdoms and their counterparts in China, Japan, and elsewhere. In regards to Goryeo (and even the older Kingdom of Baekje), there is scholarship that points to a more cosmopolitan culture, with significant influences of trade routes.

For example: Baekje WHS OUV

Criterion (ii): The archaeological sites and architecture of the Baekje Historic Areas exhibit the interchange between the ancient East Asian kingdoms in Korea, China and Japan in the development of construction techniques and the spread of Buddhism.

I have not yet discovered any writing within Korea that views the term 'Silk Road' as a problem. However, its worth noting, I do not see the term 'Silk Road' in the AB evaluation for Baekje, nor the nomination file. This seems to further point to ICOMOS not being entirely comfortable using the term, even when part of the OUV is directly related to trade with neighboring states in the region. I will be interested to read/analyze the position of Japan in regards to the 'Eastern Silk Roads'.