Assessment of Safety Levels in the Agricultural Sector for Supporting Social Sustainability: A Quantitative Analysis from a National Point of View

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

1. Research Question and Objectives:

The research question and objectives are clearly defined and relevant to the field. The authors aim to assess injury occurrence and risk factors in the agricultural sector to propose guidelines for improving social sustainability. The focus on social sustainability and safety levels in agriculture is crucial, given the sector's importance and the potential impact on workers' well-being.

 

2. Research Methods and Data Analysis Techniques:

The research methods and data analysis techniques employed in the study are well-described and appropriate. The authors utilize both quantitative and qualitative methods, analyzing national datasets to identify key causes and risk sources leading to injuries in the sector. The combination of these methods provides a comprehensive and robust approach to addressing the research questions.

 

3. Validity and Reliability of Results:

The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study, including the use of national datasets, which may not capture localized variations. Despite this, the results are presented transparently and supported by the data analysis. The discussion of the findings is thorough and balanced, emphasizing both the strengths and limitations, thus increasing the validity and reliability of the results.

 

4. Implications and Potential Impact:

The study's implications are well-discussed, with specific guidelines proposed for improving social sustainability levels in the agricultural sector. By identifying risk factors and injury occurrences, the research contributes to the field of occupational health and safety. The recommendations have the potential to make a positive impact on workers' well-being and productivity in the agricultural industry.

 

5. Clarity and Coherence of Writing:

The writing in the file is clear and well-organized. The authors present the research in a concise manner, making it easy for readers to follow the analysis and understand the key findings. The flow of information is logical and coherent, ensuring that the reader can grasp the research objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions without any confusion.

 

6. Adherence to Journal's Guidelines:

The file appears to adhere to the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements. The research is presented in a standard academic format, with appropriate headings, sections, and citations. The comprehensive list of relevant references demonstrates a thorough review of the existing literature on the topic.

 

7.Grammar and Typographical Errors:

Based on the information provided, there were no indications of grammar or typographical errors in the  file. However, a detailed examination might be necessary to ensure the manuscript's overall quality.

 

8. Originality and Contribution:

The research demonstrates originality by focusing on safety levels and social sustainability in the agricultural sector. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods provides valuable insights into injury occurrences and risk factors. The study's contribution to the field lies in its proposed guidelines for improving social sustainability, which can benefit policymakers and stakeholders in the agricultural industry.

 

Feedback and Recommendations:

The file presents a well-supported analysis of safety levels and social sustainability in the agricultural sector. One recommendation for improvement could be to conduct a more comprehensive analysis by incorporating regional data to capture localized variations. Additionally, the authors could consider discussing the potential challenges in implementing the proposed guidelines and ways to address them.

 

Decision:

Based on the strengths and weaknesses highlighted, the paper appears suitable for publication, pending minor revisions. The authors should address the limitations mentioned and provide further clarity on the potential challenges of implementing the proposed guidelines. Once these revisions are made, the paper would make a valuable contribution to the field and warrant publication.

 

Overall, the file provides a well-researched and well-structured analysis, with strong support for the authors' conclusions and recommendations. With some minor revisions and additions, it has the potential to be a valuable addition to the literature on safety levels in the agricultural sector and their implications for social sustainability.

Author Response

1. Research Question and Objectives:

The research question and objectives are clearly defined and relevant to the field. The authors aim to assess injury occurrence and risk factors in the agricultural sector to propose guidelines for improving social sustainability. The focus on social sustainability and safety levels in agriculture is crucial, given the sector's importance and the potential impact on workers' well-being.

2. Research Methods and Data Analysis Techniques:

The research methods and data analysis techniques employed in the study are well-described and appropriate. The authors utilize both quantitative and qualitative methods, analyzing national datasets to identify key causes and risk sources leading to injuries in the sector. The combination of these methods provides a comprehensive and robust approach to addressing the research questions.

3. Validity and Reliability of Results:

The authors acknowledge the limitations of their study, including the use of national datasets, which may not capture localized variations. Despite this, the results are presented transparently and supported by the data analysis. The discussion of the findings is thorough and balanced, emphasizing both the strengths and limitations, thus increasing the validity and reliability of the results.

4. Implications and Potential Impact:

The study's implications are well-discussed, with specific guidelines proposed for improving social sustainability levels in the agricultural sector. By identifying risk factors and injury occurrences, the research contributes to the field of occupational health and safety. The recommendations have the potential to make a positive impact on workers' well-being and productivity in the agricultural industry.

5. Clarity and Coherence of Writing:

The writing in the file is clear and well-organized. The authors present the research in a concise manner, making it easy for readers to follow the analysis and understand the key findings. The flow of information is logical and coherent, ensuring that the reader can grasp the research objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions without any confusion.

6. Adherence to Journal's Guidelines:

The file appears to adhere to the journal's guidelines and formatting requirements. The research is presented in a standard academic format, with appropriate headings, sections, and citations. The comprehensive list of relevant references demonstrates a thorough review of the existing literature on the topic.

7.Grammar and Typographical Errors:

Based on the information provided, there were no indications of grammar or typographical errors in the  file. However, a detailed examination might be necessary to ensure the manuscript's overall quality.

8. Originality and Contribution:

The research demonstrates originality by focusing on safety levels and social sustainability in the agricultural sector. The combination of quantitative and qualitative methods provides valuable insights into injury occurrences and risk factors. The study's contribution to the field lies in its proposed guidelines for improving social sustainability, which can benefit policymakers and stakeholders in the agricultural industry.

 

Feedback and Recommendations:

The file presents a well-supported analysis of safety levels and social sustainability in the agricultural sector. One recommendation for improvement could be to conduct a more comprehensive analysis by incorporating regional data to capture localized variations. Additionally, the authors could consider discussing the potential challenges in implementing the proposed guidelines and ways to address them.

Decision:

Based on the strengths and weaknesses highlighted, the paper appears suitable for publication, pending minor revisions. The authors should address the limitations mentioned and provide further clarity on the potential challenges of implementing the proposed guidelines. Once these revisions are made, the paper would make a valuable contribution to the field and warrant publication. 

Overall, the file provides a well-researched and well-structured analysis, with strong support for the authors' conclusions and recommendations. With some minor revisions and additions, it has the potential to be a valuable addition to the literature on safety levels in the agricultural sector and their implications for social sustainability.

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We added some more limitations in the discussion and conclusion section, to include your suggestions.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Thank you to the authors for improving the paper.

All comments (sustainability-2503155) have been taken into account in the submitted version of the article.

Author Response

Thank you to the authors for improving the paper.

All comments (sustainability-2503155) have been taken into account in the submitted version of the article

Thank you for your feedback and valuable contribution that has helped us improving our study.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your research manuscript and would like to provide some comments and suggestions to enhance the overall quality and impact of your work.

Firstly, I recommend that you work closely with the editor to provide a clear and concise summary of your research design, research questions, hypotheses, and methods used in the study. A well-defined research framework will improve the academic validity and reliability of your research. By clearly outlining these aspects, readers will have a better understanding of the study's objectives and how you approached the research process.

Secondly, I suggest considering the use of more accessible language to make your research more understandable to a wider audience. While academic writing often employs technical terminology, incorporating plain language and avoiding excessive jargon can help engage readers who may not be familiar with the specific field of study. This will broaden the reach and impact of your research, allowing it to be accessible and useful to a broader range of individuals, including policymakers and practitioners.

Furthermore, I noticed that the number of references in your manuscript is relatively low. It would be beneficial to expand your research to include a broader range of perspectives and methods, particularly regarding occupational safety in the agricultural sector. By incorporating diverse viewpoints and utilizing different research approaches, you can provide a more comprehensive analysis of the topic. This expansion could involve incorporating qualitative research methods such as interviews or surveys to gather insights from relevant stakeholders or considering interdisciplinary collaborations to gain a holistic understanding of the issues at hand.

 

Author Response

Dear Authors,

I have reviewed your research manuscript and would like to provide some comments and suggestions to enhance the overall quality and impact of your work.

Firstly, I recommend that you work closely with the editor to provide a clear and concise summary of your research design, research questions, hypotheses, and methods used in the study. A well-defined research framework will improve the academic validity and reliability of your research. By clearly outlining these aspects, readers will have a better understanding of the study's objectives and how you approached the research process.

1. Thank you for this suggestion. A specific “Materials and Methods” section has been now added, including information about the methods adopted.

Secondly, I suggest considering the use of more accessible language to make your research more understandable to a wider audience. While academic writing often employs technical terminology, incorporating plain language and avoiding excessive jargon can help engage readers who may not be familiar with the specific field of study. This will broaden the reach and impact of your research, allowing it to be accessible and useful to a broader range of individuals, including policymakers and practitioners.

1. Thank you for the comment. We attempted to use a clearer language in the added parts.

Furthermore, I noticed that the number of references in your manuscript is relatively low. It would be beneficial to expand your research to include a broader range of perspectives and methods, particularly regarding occupational safety in the agricultural sector. By incorporating diverse viewpoints and utilizing different research approaches, you can provide a more comprehensive analysis of the topic. This expansion could involve incorporating qualitative research methods such as interviews or surveys to gather insights from relevant stakeholders or considering interdisciplinary collaborations to gain a holistic understanding of the issues at hand.

1. Thank you for this comment. We have included more reference as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is difficult for me to discern the scientific contribution of this paper. The paper is very poor. In this form, this is enough for an oral presentation on a conference, but not for a technical paper in the journal of this level. In the opinion of the reviewer, the paper needs a serious reworking before it will be ready to be published in an international journal. 

The introduction is not clear. The methodology is confusing. No hypothesis has been set, nor are the goals and sub-goals of the paper clearly defined. The text does not explain in detail what is shown in the tables. The results and discussion are poor. Unfortunately, there are several insufficiencies that need to be improved.  

Here are comments for the Authors for their further improvement:

1. The introduction (Sections 1 and 2) describe the research background very poor. The paper does not present the full background of the issue under study. Old references - for example from 2003.

2. The aim of this research is not clear and short presented in the paper in section 1.

3. The next Section (3: Method/Methodology) should be dedicated to describing methodology and what Author did in paper. The methodology should be described and be solid enough such that any other person using the same procedure will could repeat the research. Now, it is impossible because paper do not have this section.

4. The manuscript is insufficient structured with no real stated connection between the sections. The authors need to rearrange their sections and use the IMRaD structure.

5. In this paper I do not see good prepare section: Discussion. Unfortunately, this paper does not point out the shortcomings of past research to show the value of this research. Add a strengths and weaknesses section and limitations section of this research to the new section: Discussion. The discussion should refer to other studies, indicate the shortcomings of the research.

The final impression is that it is necessary to make a complete restructuring of the paper, strengthen the research, and then present it in a quality manner. In this form, unfortunately, I suggest rejecting the paper.

Author Response

It is difficult for me to discern the scientific contribution of this paper. The paper is very poor. In this form, this is enough for an oral presentation on a conference, but not for a technical paper in the journal of this level. In the opinion of the reviewer, the paper needs a serious reworking before it will be ready to be published in an international journal. 

The introduction is not clear. The methodology is confusing. No hypothesis has been set, nor are the goals and sub-goals of the paper clearly defined. The text does not explain in detail what is shown in the tables. The results and discussion are poor. Unfortunately, there are several insufficiencies that need to be improved.  

Here are comments for the Authors for their further improvement:

1. The introduction (Sections 1 and 2) describe the research background very poor. The paper does not present the full background of the issue under study. Old references - for example from 2003.
2. Thank you for this comment. The introduction section has been modified to clarify the context and some recent references have been included.
3. The aim of this research is not clear and short presented in the paper in section 1.
4. The aim of the study has been further described in the introduction.
5. The next Section (3: Method/Methodology) should be dedicated to describing methodology and what Author did in paper. The methodology should be described and be solid enough such that any other person using the same procedure will could repeat the research. Now, it is impossible because paper do not have this section.
6. Thank you for this suggestion. A specific “Materials and Methods” section has been now added, including information about the methods adopted.
7. The manuscript is insufficient structured with no real stated connection between the sections. The authors need to rearrange their sections and use the IMRaD structure.
8. Thank you for this comment. After the changes included, the manuscript is now arranged according to the IMRaD structure.
9. In this paper I do not see good prepare section: Discussion. Unfortunately, this paper does not point out the shortcomings of past research to show the value of this research. Add a strengths and weaknesses section and limitations section of this research to the new section: Discussion. The discussion should refer to other studies, indicate the shortcomings of the research.

A: Thank you for the suggestion. The discussion section has been improved with more details, and limitations of the study have been integrated in the conclusion, since they are strictly related with the possible further developments described in the same paragraph. The difference with other studies has been described at the end of section 2.

The final impression is that it is necessary to make a complete restructuring of the paper, strengthen the research, and then present it in a quality manner. In this form, unfortunately, I suggest rejecting the paper.

A: The paper has been heavily modified according to the precious comments provided by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to read and review this academic article. My thoughts are as follows:

         i.            Lines 38-43. What exactly the author wants to highlight? The Author suggests agricultural workers are at high risk at first, but later say that they are gravely harmed. This implies that the second phrase is the result of the first. In this instance, the Author can stick to the risk definition.

       ii.            The first paragraph appears to be too complicated; dividing it into two or three paragraphs would be better.

     iii.            The Author must modify the citation style. The citation style suggested by Sustainability must be followed.

      iv.            When discussing accident statistics, near-miss figures can also be used to better accurately reflect the situation. It would be helpful if near-miss is also being addressed.

       v.            the scope of "agriculture" in this study must be clarified, as the term "agriculture" includes forestry in some places but not in others.

      vi.            It seems that the Author implies that accidents are also strongly linked to the technology employed. Is this supported by this research? Please provide strong reference for this.

    vii.            For the information in Figure 1, does the low accident rate from 2019 to the end of 2020, which then rises again in 2021, also due to COVID-19's impact? The author must explain why the accident rate has decreased in successive periods.

  viii.            When providing the accident rate data, I believe that demographic data should get consideration, such as the amount of farmland in Italy and the number of agricultural workers, their education, etc.

      ix.            The Authors should expand their investigation by looking at the current safety organizations in the workplace as well as the state of the safety climate--culture in Italy's agricultural sector.

       x.            The Authors present suggestions for kinds of intervention, such as training, in the Discussion. Training can take many forms and serve many goals. What kind of training? Is it intended to improve knowledge or skills? This must be highlighted since there are theories that explain the relationship between knowledge and behavior, which is not the same as the relationship between skills and behavior.

      xi.            The same question should be raised about the advice for real-time monitoring systems. What scientific evidence did the authors in the Italian case that caused the authors to make this recommendation?

    xii.            Rather than relying solely on the data in Table 3 to make these suggestions, the authors must also consider the accident types in conjunction with the identified risk variables. This will provide the Author with a solid scientific foundation on which to base your recommendation, as The Author said in the Discussion section.

  xiii.            The study's limitations must be disclosed explicitly in the paragraph preceding the conclusion.

  xiv.            The final section of the conclusion does not appear to be thoroughly discussed in the Discussion section. A revision should be made.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to read and review this academic article. My thoughts are as follows:

43. Lines 38-43. What exactly the author wants to highlight? The Author suggests agricultural workers are at high risk at first, but later say that they are gravely harmed. This implies that the second phrase is the result of the first. In this instance, the Author can stick to the risk definition.

A: Thank you for the comment. The sentence has been rephrased to clarify the meaning.

1. The first paragraph appears to be too complicated; dividing it into two or three paragraphs would be better.

A: Thank you, we followed this suggestion and modified the paragraph.

• The Author must modify the citation style. The citation style suggested by Sustainability must be followed.

A: Thank you, we followed this suggestion and modified the style.

1. When discussing accident statistics, near-miss figures can also be used to better accurately reflect the situation. It would be helpful if near-miss is also being addressed.

A: Thank you for the comment. A reference to the incidence of near miss events has been included in the introduction. It has to be noted that data about near miss are not provided by national database for any industrial sector.

1. the scope of "agriculture" in this study must be clarified, as the term "agriculture" includes forestry in some places but not in others.

A: Thank you for the comments: sectors included in “agriculture” have been defined in Section 3 (lines 160-161).

1. It seems that the Author implies that accidents are also strongly linked to the technology employed. Is this supported by this research? Please provide strong reference for this.

A: The cross analysis has identified the incorrect use of machinery usually adopted in this sector (e.g. tractors) as a root cause of an accident/injury. In the literature section, this result has been also outlined by some studies.   

    vii.            For the information in Figure 1, does the low accident rate from 2019 to the end of 2020, which then rises again in 2021, also due to COVID-19's impact? The author must explain why the accident rate has decreased in successive periods.

A: Thank you for the question. We have clarified in the text that there seems to be a connection between accident rate and covid in 2020.

  viii.            When providing the accident rate data, I believe that demographic data should get consideration, such as the amount of farmland in Italy and the number of agricultural workers, their education, etc.

A: Some more demographic data have been added at the beginning of section 4.

1. The Authors should expand their investigation by looking at the current safety organizations in the workplace as well as the state of the safety climate--culture in Italy's agricultural sector.

A: Thank you for the suggestion. Some more reference-based context has been included in the introduction.

1. The Authors present suggestions for kinds of intervention, such as training, in the Discussion. Training can take many forms and serve many goals. What kind of training? Is it intended to improve knowledge or skills? This must be highlighted since there are theories that explain the relationship between knowledge and behavior, which is not the same as the relationship between skills and behavior.

A: Thank you for this comment. Some more reference-based context has been included in the discussion to clarify the type of training intended.

1. The same question should be raised about the advice for real-time monitoring systems. What scientific evidence did the authors in the Italian case that caused the authors to make this recommendation?

A: Some references about this issue has been added in the discussion section, but this topic is still in an early stage of analysis. This is only a future research suggestion, not exclusively valid for the Italian case study.

    xii.            Rather than relying solely on the data in Table 3 to make these suggestions, the authors must also consider the accident types in conjunction with the identified risk variables. This will provide the Author with a solid scientific foundation on which to base your recommendation, as The Author said in the Discussion section.

A: Thank you for this comment. The recommendations are based on the analysis of accident type crossed with the data on risk factors shown in Table 4.

  xiii.            The study's limitations must be disclosed explicitly in the paragraph preceding the conclusion.

A: Thank you for the suggestion. The limitations of the study have been integrated in the conclusion, since they are strictly related with the possible further developments described in the same paragraph.

  xiv.            The final section of the conclusion does not appear to be thoroughly discussed in the Discussion section. A revision should be made.

A: The discussion section has been modified to clarify the connection with the conclusions.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest revising the article extensively before proceeding.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for this opportunity to second review your manuscript which addresses a very important topic in assessment of safety levels in the agricultural sector.

The purpose of the study could be significant both for practitioners and researchers, but the realization described in the article is not adequately presented. I am sorry to say that the manuscript, in the current form, is not ready for the publication due to its serious flaws. 

The first one is the poor literature review. The introduction (Sections 1 and 2) describe still the research background very poor. The paper does not present the full background of the issue under study.

The second major flaw, is the lack of sufficient information on the details of the research process (Section (3: Method/Methodology). For instance, the method should be explained in detail.

The third major issue is the weak novelty and contribution of the findings to the existing literature. This issue can be fixed by paying enough attention to the structure and content of the manuscript when you start to rewrite it.

Finally, the fourth and lat major issue: in this paper I do not see good prepare section: Discussion. Unfortunately, this paper does not point out the shortcomings of past research to show the value of this research. Aging; pleass add a strengths and weaknesses section and limitations section of this research to the new section: Discussion. The discussion should refer to other studies, indicate the shortcomings of the research.

In my opinion, the art and illustrations of the presented step-by-step approach.

Finally, I cannot recommend the article for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the revisions made to the manuscript. I would like to express my gratitude for the diligent efforts you have made in addressing the various concerns that were raised in the previous review. However, it is necessary for me to communicate that the existing modifications, although indicative of improvement, fall short of attaining the desired standard of thoroughness and robustness in the rationale put forth.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf