Identification of Risk Influential Factors for Fishing Vessel Accidents Using Claims Data from Fishery Mutual Insurance Association

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

From the point of view of the theoretical framework, there is a certain contradiction between the support of the literature review, in which it emphasizes human factors in the genesis of accidents, and the results obtained, in which these variables are dispersed among others in the process of causality. There is, therefore, the demonstration of multicausality in the process. Emphasizing human factors is typical of a pauci-causal analysis conception. The results contradict this analysis, but maintain this emphasis in the introduction.

I think that there should be basic information on how the organization and structure of work on fishing vessels is. Are they state vessels? Private? Fishermen's cooperatives?

Line 139: Standardize the BN acronym.

Figure 1 lacks clarity.

Lines 206 to 208: Missing definition for abbreviations. What is DL?

Line 240: I suggest mentioning the equation number in your presentation in the text.

Line 242: Pi instead of Pe.

Lines 403 and 404: I consider it as a method.

Lines 456: Severe" must be lowercase.

Lines 443 and 444: I also understand it as a method.

I believe the reference to using the GeNIe software should be in the method.

It is not clear what Rp and Ri represent, in relation to the sensitivity analysis, presented in Figures 7 to 9.

Line 722: in order to obtain a probability of accidents in the seasons of the year, it would be necessary to know the number of vessels at sea in each period. The study only describes the distribution of accidents involving vessels by seasons.

I found it strange that the conclusion preceded the discussion.

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Identification of Risk Influential Factors for Fishing Vessel Accident using Claims Data from Fisheries Mutual Insurance Association” (ID: sustainability-2563536). We appreciate your feedback and have studied the comments carefully. We have addressed each point below to improve the quality of the paper and made corrections. The modifications to manuscript are highlight in track records. The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows (the replies are highlighted in red, and the newly added contents are highlighted in red with italics):

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the main factors affecting fishing boat accidents are deeply studied, which is a key step to improve fishery safety. However, the paper needs some revisions to improve its quality.

1. The novelty and contribution of this paper should be further clarified.

2."RF" is not given in the abstract, but it appears many times in the article.

3.In line 77 of the article "spanning 2018 to 2022", the grammar is wrong.

4. The number of decimal places in the data in the chart should be consistent.

5.Formulas and charts in the article should be aligned.

6. The validation of the proposed method should be completed with comparing it with others.

7.The limitation of this paper should be figured out.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Identification of Risk Influential Factors for Fishing Vessel Accident using Claims Data from Fisheries Mutual Insurance Association” (ID: sustainability-2563536). We appreciate your feedback and have studied the comments carefully. We have addressed each point below to improve the quality of the paper and made corrections. The modifications to manuscript are highlight in track records. The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows (the replies are highlighted in red, and the newly added contents are highlighted in red with italics):

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a well-written scientific paper that presents the problem, uses appropriate data and methods, analyses it properly, and concludes with a fruitful discussion. However, there are some observations that still need to be addressed (see below).

·         The paragraph from Lines 82-90, please delete.

·         In Figure 1, the distribution of locations is shown using two colours. A legend explaining the meaning of the colours needs to be added.

·         In Table 4, the logic for assigning importance scores to variables needs to be added.  

·         Set the discussion part before the conclusion.  

·         In conclusion, it would be better if the author included any major limitations of the model used.

·         In conclusion, the last three clauses suddenly appear. Please link these points to the previous 

Could you please carefully review the text for any spelling errors, inconsistencies, or typos? Thank you.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your valuable and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “Identification of Risk Influential Factors for Fishing Vessel Accident using Claims Data from Fisheries Mutual Insurance Association” (ID: sustainability-2563536). We appreciate your feedback and have studied the comments carefully. We have addressed each point below to improve the quality of the paper and made corrections. The modifications to manuscript are highlight in track records. The responds to the reviewer’s comments are as follows (the replies are highlighted in red, and the newly added contents are highlighted in red with italics):

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The problems raised last time have basically been solved, but a little modification is needed:

1. The fig.1 on the fourth page is not aligned.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your time and feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate the positive acknowledgment that the issues raised previously have been largely addressed. Below is our response to the specific comments you mentioned:

1. Figure Alignment Issue: We have rechecked Fig. 1 on the fourth page and corrected the alignment issue. It should now be appropriately aligned as per the journal's format standards.
2. Minor Editing of English Language: We have consulted with a colleague skilled in English writing to help thoroughly copyedited the manuscript once again to polish the English language usage, grammar, and overall clarity of the text. Changes include (as indicated using track record in the revised manuscript):

• Correcting any minor grammar, punctuation or spelling errors
• Revising awkward or unclear phrasing
• Ensuring subject-verb agreement and tense consistency
• Standardizing terminology and abbreviation usage
• Clarifying sentences by breaking them into shorter structures
• Changing passive voice to active voice where applicable
• Smoothing transitions between ideas and sections

We hope these adjustments address your concerns, and we believe they enhance the overall quality of the manuscript. Once again, thank you for your constructive feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf