Postural Assessment of Three Wood Measurement Options by the OWAS Method: Digital Solutions Seem to Be Better

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- The conclusions in the annotation are very general.
- The study does not indicate the number of operators during the measurement and the potential deviation of several people during the same work activity.
- I consider the output as a case study.
- Considering the number of abbreviations and body segment codes are the results of the study less clear. For this reason are the results more difficult to understand.

Author Response

Reviewer #1

C1: The conclusions in the annotation are very general.

R1: Thank you for this comment! We have improved the abstract.

 

C2: The study does not indicate the number of operators during the measurement and the potential deviation of several people during the same work activity.

R2: Thank you for this comment! In this version of the manuscript the number of subjects is described in Lines 143-145 (old version: Lines 146-148). The second part fo the comment was addressed in lines 157-163 in this version, and in lines 161-166 of the original version of the manuscript. In addition, we did not set a goal in this study to characterize inter-subject deviation but to characterize more generally these measurement options in terms of posture. We agree with the reviewer that these deviations could bring a certain variability in data as the effects of work habits and anthropometry, but these comparisons would require more variability in anthropometry as compared to what we could handle at the time being. Nevertheless, we have improved this part in the discussion section.

 

C3: I consider the output as a case study.

R3: Thank you for this comment! In many ways, the results come from a case study. We have explained this limitation in the original version of the manuscript, in lines 404-409. In this version, this limitation is given in Lines 407-412, 421-439. Unfortunately, the digital procedures described by us are not an industry standard yet to allow a higher pool of subjects to be assessed.

 

C4: Considering the number of abbreviations and body segment codes are the results of the study less clear. For this reason are the results more difficult to understand.

R4: Thank you for this comment! We have done our best to improve the readability of the results by considering also the comments of the Reviewers 2 and 3 and the standards in data reporting.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript talks about ergonomics, a key area that hasn't moved forward as much as other forestry topics.

My thoughts on this manuscript are summarized below. 
1. The author must explain how the analysis is carried out as a static or dynamic postural analysis (? ), each of which has implications for the data employed in the study. 

2. Postural analysis can be performed using a variety of methods, each with its own set of benefits and drawbacks. The same is true for OWAS. The author must clearly explain in the title that this study was carried out utilizing OWAS. Similarly, the author must clarify the OWAS instrument's limitations and sensitivity level. Because, for example, if the same posture is analyzed using a more accurate biomechanics approach (by focusing on the L5/S1 compression force), there may be no significant difference between the manual technique and the mobile scanning platform, or if the concept of the normal range of motion is used, it is possible that both scaling techniques do not pose a risk to the scaler.

3. Also, the author must include information about the angle of the body parts when doing certain actions, like B2 movements. For example, bending at an angle of less than 20 degrees will put a lot more stress on the muscles and joints than bending at a larger angle.

4. It would be useful if the authors could provide information/data on occupational health disorders experienced by scalers when using manual techniques vs. when using mobile platforms, as the use of newer technology does not always pose less risk than manual techniques, even when accuracy or work productivity may be improved.

5. Because illustrations are part of the narrative that must stand alone, the author must complete each illustration with the proper "note" or "legend." For example, no explanation is given for the initial B1, B2, etc. in Table 3 (also in other tables).

6. As for writing style, the acronyms MS, LM, and so on should not be used repeatedly in the main text. Simply explain the abbreviation the first time it comes up, then use the abbreviation solely.

 

7. Authors should think about how they use self-citation and limit self-citation that is not directly connected. It is understandable if the research is particularly specific, but if similar research already exists, it would be good to compare other researchers' research with the author's own research.

Thank you.

Author Response

Reviewer #2

This manuscript talks about ergonomics, a key area that hasn't moved forward as much as other forestry topics.

My thoughts on this manuscript are summarized below.

C1. The author must explain how the analysis is carried out as a static or dynamic postural analysis (?), each of which has implications for the data employed in the study.

R1. Thank you for this comment! New information was added in discussion section.

 

C2. Postural analysis can be performed using a variety of methods, each with its own set of benefits and drawbacks. The same is true for OWAS. The author must clearly explain in the title that this study was carried out utilizing OWAS. Similarly, the author must clarify the OWAS instrument's limitations and sensitivity level. Because, for example, if the same posture is analyzed using a more accurate biomechanics approach (by focusing on the L5/S1 compression force), there may be no significant difference between the manual technique and the mobile scanning platform, or if the concept of the normal range of motion is used, it is possible that both scaling techniques do not pose a risk to the scaler.

R2. Thank you for this comment! The tile was updated and the second part of the comment was addressed in discussion.

 

C3. Also, the author must include information about the angle of the body parts when doing certain actions, like B2 movements. For example, bending at an angle of less than 20 degrees will put a lot more stress on the muscles and joints than bending at a larger angle.

R3. Thank you for this comment! New information added in discussion.

 

C4. It would be useful if the authors could provide information/data on occupational health disorders experienced by scalers when using manual techniques vs. when using mobile platforms, as the use of newer technology does not always pose less risk than manual techniques, even when accuracy or work productivity may be improved.

R4. Thank you for this comment! We have improved the discussion and we have added relevant studies from forestry in the introductory part of the manuscript, in the original version. Unfortunately, as stated in the introduction, we couldn’t find specific studied on wood measurement. Probably this is due to the fact that these tasks are commonly included in other jobs such as harvesting or transportation, where the emphasis of science was on main and not on the complementary operations such as measurement. We have searched again for specific studies (hopefully we did not miss any) but we could not find them.

 

C5. Because illustrations are part of the narrative that must stand alone, the author must complete each illustration with the proper "note" or "legend." For example, no explanation is given for the initial B1, B2, etc. in Table 3 (also in other tables).

R5. Thank you for this comment! Information was added where relevant.

 

C6. As for writing style, the acronyms MS, LM, and so on should not be used repeatedly in the main text. Simply explain the abbreviation the first time it comes up, then use the abbreviation solely.

R6. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated accordingly.

 

C7. Authors should think about how they use self-citation and limit self-citation that is not directly connected. It is understandable if the research is particularly specific, but if similar research already exists, it would be good to compare other researchers' research with the author's own research.

R7. Thank you for this comment! Indeed, there seems to be a high rate of self-citation in our paper. We have double-checked the utility of these references and we have found that they are directly connected to the study. However, we agree that the references list should be more balanced and inclusive, a reason for which we have documented other references in it.

 

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

 

The topic of the paper is very interesting and the manuscript is well-prepared. However, some points have to be addressed, so that the manuscript is further considered for publication:

Title: Please consider rephrasing, the title can be confusing. Try a more straight- forward approach.

General comment: Regarding the title and some points in text, you prefer using the lack of a negative aspect (risk) than, the seemingly possible, presence of a positive aspect. Please consider changing accordingly.

L29-30: “The main conclusion of the study is that the state-of-art digital solutions of wood measurement are not harmful from a postural point of view”. Please rephrase. As it is written, it seems like the digital solutions are examined with regard to the danger involved during their implementation.

L94: What is it “in” 2021 or “is being” implemented since 2021?

L97: Postural neutrality vs postural sustainability

L98: Please consider skipping the (ing) in the three objectives

L104: Rephrase number with total

L109-111: “During the field phase of the study, comparative measurements were taken for logs, which supposed the use of three measurement options, namely manual measurement, scanning by a professional laser scanning, and scanning by a smartphone” to “During the field phase of the study, each log was measured thrice, once manually, a second time by using a professional laser scanning, and finally by scanning by a smartphone”. Furthermore, you still have to include the special platform included in Figure 1!

L122: … with a caliper..

L129 .. carried in a backpack..

L153-155: Please consider splitting this part of text in two or more sentences to avoid possible confusions: The tasks are described in Table 1 and later. The images were analyzed according to the OWAS method.

L163: Manual measurement of the logs

L166: by vs for

Table 1 at MM: measure the diameters

L224: Is it needed to have “Table 3” bolded?

General comment: Consider changing the acronyms to others that bring more resemblance to the full name e.g. Scanning by smart phone as “PS” is difficult to understand compared to SPH (Scanning with Phone – likewise, SMS for scanner and MLM for Manual Log Measurement). Also the Scanning/measurement values should be closer to allow for easier comparisons (see PS position).

L232: Once you described the acronyms in text, there is no need for explaining them again.

L281: According to your data the percentage is 79.62%

General comment: Replace commas at decimal values, when applicable.

Figure 3: Consider splitting F3 into two shorter Figures, containing the same amount of information, but with different captions. It will be easier for the journal readership to follow your analysis this way.

L347: Please consider replacing “updated”.

General comment: The authors could easily include some older and newer publications on the wider subtopic of postural assessment in forest professions. The papers are not that many, can be easily included in the Introduction or Discussion, but, and most important, would provide the readers a better overview of what has been done so far.

Once again a well prepared paper!

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer #3

The topic of the paper is very interesting and the manuscript is well-prepared. However, some points have to be addressed, so that the manuscript is further considered for publication:

 

C1. Title: Please consider rephrasing, the title can be confusing. Try a more straight-forward approach.

R1. Thank you for this comment! The title was updated.

 

C2. General comment: Regarding the title and some points in text, you prefer using the lack of a negative aspect (risk) than, the seemingly possible, presence of a positive aspect. Please consider changing accordingly.

R2. Thank you for this comment! The title and text were updated.

 

C3. L29-30: “The main conclusion of the study is that the state-of-art digital solutions of wood measurement are not harmful from a postural point of view”. Please rephrase. As it is written, it seems like the digital solutions are examined with regard to the danger involved during their implementation.

R3. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C4. L94: What is it “in” 2021 or “is being” implemented since 2021?

R4. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C5. L97: Postural neutrality vs postural sustainability

R5. Thanks for the comment! The authors in this paper have set themselves the main objective: “characterize the postures of the main parts of the body, in wood measurement, with the two detection methods”. By characterizing these postures it has been possible define if they could be sustainable and therefore not cause physical damage in the long term. For this reason the sentence "postural sustainability" has been used.

 

 

C6. L98: Please consider skipping the (ing) in the three objectives

R6. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C7. L104: Rephrase number with total

R7. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C8. L109-111: “During the field phase of the study, comparative measurements were taken for logs, which supposed the use of three measurement options, namely manual measurement, scanning by a professional laser scanning, and scanning by a smartphone” to “During the field phase of the study, each log was measured thrice, once manually, a second time by using a professional laser scanning, and finally by scanning by a smartphone”. Furthermore, you still have to include the special platform included in Figure 1!

R8. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C9. L122: … with a caliper..

R9. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C10. L129 .. carried in a backpack..

R10. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C11. L153-155: Please consider splitting this part of text in two or more sentences to avoid possible confusions: The tasks are described in Table 1 and later. The images were analyzed according to the OWAS method.

R11. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C12. L163: Manual measurement of the logs

R12. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C13. L166: by vs for

R13. Thank you for this comment! We think that the original phrasing is OK.

 

C14. Table 1 at MM: measure the diameters

R14. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C15. L224: Is it needed to have “Table 3” bolded?

R15. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated here and in other parts.

 

C16. General comment: Consider changing the acronyms to others that bring more resemblance to the full name e.g. Scanning by smart phone as “PS” is difficult to understand compared to SPH (Scanning with Phone – likewise, SMS for scanner and MLM for Manual Log Measurement). Also the Scanning/measurement values should be closer to allow for easier comparisons (see PS position).

R16. Thank you for this comment! Considering the input from all the reviewers, as well as the way we accommodated other comments which involve changes (i.e. figures and tables) we would like to keep this original version of the abbreviations.

 

C17. L232: Once you described the acronyms in text, there is no need for explaining them again.

R17. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C18. L281: According to your data the percentage is 79.62%

R18. Thank you so much for this observation!!! It was a keyboard typo which was corrected.

 

C19. General comment: Replace commas at decimal values, when applicable.

R19. Thank you for this comment! Changes were made in Table 3 by adding commas to separate thousands. The rest of numeric data in the text seems to be properly reported.

 

C20. Figure 3: Consider splitting F3 into two shorter Figures, containing the same amount of information, but with different captions. It will be easier for the journal readership to follow your analysis this way.

R20. Thank you for this comment! We have divided the data on the figure in sections/panels based on the compared pairs so as to make it more readable. We believe that this option is better to guide the reader instead of referring him/her to several figures.

 

C21. L347: Please consider replacing “updated”.

R21. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated.

 

C22. General comment: The authors could easily include some older and newer publications on the wider subtopic of postural assessment in forest professions. The papers are not that many, can be easily included in the Introduction or Discussion, but, and most important, would provide the readers a better overview of what has been done so far.

R22. Thank you for this comment! The text was updated mainly in the discussion section.

 

C23. Once again a well prepared paper!

R23. Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I have read the author's revisions, and I'm satisfied with this manuscript.

This manuscript has been written very well, with the exception of the "Citation" section on the first page, where the title of the manuscript in the provided citation format differs from the revised title.

We appreciate your efforts.

Best regards