Modeling of Causes and Consequences of Human Error in Mining Processes Design: A Qualitative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The content of this article can be used as popular science knowledge, but it is not a scientific research paper. The whole content is only a summary of the current situation of the designers, staff and managers of the mining industry, which is not of great value to the production and management of the mine.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer, Thank you for taking the time to review the manuscript. Let us provide some facts to being this study is a scientific research paper. In order to answer the question of factors affecting design errors in mines and its consequences, a qualitative approach (grounded theory strategy) has been used, which uses well-known and scientific methods in the world to investigate scientific phenomena. Considering that the main challenges of mines (safety, health and environment) are due to errors in their design, the cause-effect model presented in the present study can help to identify and control the root factors. It should be noted that this study has two qualitative and quantitative parts and the results of the qualitative study (experts' opinion) are tested in real conditions in the form of a quantitative study.

Reviewer 2 Report

Hi authors. You have come out with an interesting paper on human error in mine design. However, I have a few concerns about the paper.

1. The flow of the paper is unclear and difficult to follow. In the first part of the paper, you have combined the introduction and literature review sub-chapter, making the argument on the novelty of the paper and the discussion on the line of literature on the topic unclear. Due to this issue, I find it very hard to understand and relate the human error in the mining process design proposed by the authors. I would recommend separating the introduction section (focusing on the background of research, the motivation of the research, and the novelty) and the literature review (focusing on the development of literature on the topic of both human error and mining process design, fundamentally showing that this paper is in line with previous literature). 

2. Your methodology is too brief and unclear. For your data collection, are you using a focus group study or are you using individual interviews? From the results section, I assume you are using a focus group study, which was supposedly mentioned early in the methodology section. It was also unclear on the selection procedure conducted by the authors in selecting the participants for the interview session. I would highly recommend for the authors to detail the data collection activities that have been conducted in collecting the data. The data analysis section is also unclear and lacks proper flow (i.e. the steps for data analysis starting from step 1 to finish). I would highly recommend the authors to develop a flow chart of the methodology used in this study. 

3. In my opinion, your results and conclusions have been presented clearly, however, due to the issues mentioned above, it is hard to relate the results and conclusion presented with the topic at hand. I believe that once the above-mentioned issues have been rectified, the results and conclusion would make more sense to the readers. 

4. I would also recommend for the authors to use more updated references for the paper since most of the references cited are already more than 3 years.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: 1. The flow of the paper is unclear and difficult to follow. In the first part of the paper, you have combined the introduction and literature review sub-chapter, making the argument on the novelty of the paper and the discussion on the line of literature on the topic unclear. Due to this issue, I find it very hard to understand and relate the human error in the mining process design proposed by the authors. I would recommend separating the introduction section (focusing on the background of research, the motivation of the research, and the novelty) and the literature review (focusing on the development of literature on the topic of both human error and mining process design, fundamentally showing that this paper is in line with previous literature). 

This is an interesting perspective. we attempt to deal with this issue. The introduction has been revised according to your comments (focusing on the background of research, the motivation of the research, and the novelty) and the literature review). Also, the following items were added to the introduction section.

- what is found in the paper, and how the findings contribute to the theory and practice, to provide a comprehensive view of what the reader will find in it(lines62-76)

- At the end of the introduction section, the outline of the rest of the paper was added(lines112-115)

2. Your methodology is too brief and unclear. For your data collection, are you using a focus group study or are you using individual interviews? From the results section, I assume you are using a focus group study, which was supposedly mentioned early in the methodology section. It was also unclear on the selection procedure conducted by the authors in selecting the participants for the interview session. I would highly recommend for the authors to detail the data collection activities that have been conducted in collecting the data. The data analysis section is also unclear and lacks proper flow (i.e. the steps for data analysis starting from step 1 to finish). I would highly recommend the authors to develop a flow chart of the methodology used in this study. 

Thank you for all of your detailed comments and suggestions. In the revision, This section was revised.

- A flowchart of the study implementation steps was added (section3, lines117-139).- Each step in the flowchart was explained in detail(lines140-176).- Selection criteria of experts for the study and sampling method were added(lines143-147).- The method of data collection and analysis was described in detail.

 

3. In my opinion, your results and conclusions have been presented clearly, however, due to the issues mentioned above, it is hard to relate the results and conclusion presented with the topic at hand. I believe that once the above-mentioned issues have been rectified, the results and conclusion would make more sense to the readers.

Thank you for this valuable comment, Yes, it is absolutely true. The methodology has been revised according to your comments. The results and findings of the study were also reviewed.

4. I would also recommend for the authors to use more updated references for the paper since most of the references cited are already more than 3 years.

Thank you for this comment. Up-to-date references were replaced and The full text of the article was revised by a professional editor

Again, we appreciate all your insightful comments. We worked hard to be responsive to them. Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve the paper

 

Reviewer 3 Report

topic is interesting, but this paper need to improve.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: topic is interesting, but this paper need to improve.

Thank you for this suggestion. In the revised version, the following changes were made in order to enhancing our article.

- The introduction has been revised (focusing on the background of research, the motivation of the research, and the novelty) and the literature review.

 - the contribution of study are explained in the introduction section

- We have added managerial insights to the end of discussion section.

- The full text of the article was revised by a professional editor

- The method section was revised(A flowchart of the study implementation steps was added (section3, lines117-139) and Each step in the flowchart was explained in detail(lines140-176).- Selection criteria of experts for the study and sampling method were added(lines143-147).

- At the end of the introduction section, the outline of the rest of the paper was added(lines112-115)

- Up-to-date references were replaced

- figure1 was revised(High quality figure replaced(page5)).

 

 Again, we appreciate all your insightful comments. We worked hard to be responsive to them. Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve the paper

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1892289

Type: Article

Title: Modeling of Causes and Consequences of Human Error in Mining Pro-cesses Design: A Health, Safety and Sustainability Approach

Authors: Iraj Mohammadfam, Marc Bascompta, AliAsghar Khajevandi, Hesam Dehghani

Comments for authors:

The title and the subject matter are very interesting and topical.

Mining activity today causes great environmental devastation, but it also causes the loss of human lives. This work brings these problems into sharp focus.

The abstract is concise and clear and manages to capture the reader's attention.

Introduction. The authors provide extensive and detailed arguments using a reasonable number of bibliographical references.

 However, some observations have been made which need to be addressed:

Lines 112 to 118: The paragraph is cut off and the font size is different. The full stop at the end of the paragraph is also missing. Fix.

Do not use bold words in the title of tables and figures. Fix throughout the manuscript.

Figure 1. Some sentences are difficult to read, mainly the orange ones. Please try to improve the figure.

Line 169 and 192. The bibliographic references appears in blue; please change to black. Fix.

Section 4. The authors use the following title: "4. Conclusions, limitations and scope of future work". Authors are advised to write only the following: "4. Conclusions". Limitations and scope of future work should be considered in the "Results and discussion" section. Fix.

Authors are required to do extensive spell-checking throughout the document.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer4  Comments

we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:

Point 1: Lines 112 to 118: The paragraph is cut off and the font size is different. The full stop at the end of the paragraph is also missing. Fix.

Thank you for this point. In the revision, It was done.

Point 2: Do not use bold words in the title of tables and figures. Fix throughout the manuscript.

Thank you for this point. In the revision, It was done(lines 139, 179, 204, 221, 246,423).

Point3: Figure 1. Some sentences are difficult to read, mainly the orange ones. Please try to improve the figure.

Thank you for this point. In the revision, High quality figure replaced(page5).

Point4: Line 169 and 192. The bibliographic references appears in blue; please change to black. Fix.

Thank you for this point. In the revision, It was done.

Point5: Section 4. The authors use the following title: "4. Conclusions, limitations and scope of future work". Authors are advised to write only the following: "4. Conclusions". Limitations and scope of future work should be considered in the "Results and discussion" section. Fix.

Thank you for this suggestion. In the revision, Limitations and scope of future work are added to the "Results and discussion"

Point6: Authors are required to do extensive spell-checking throughout the document

This is another great point. The manuscript was revised again by an experienced English language editor.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted