Causal Analysis of Safety Risk Perception of Iranian Coal Mining Workers Using Fuzzy Delphi and DEMATEL
, Mojtaba Gerami Sabzevar 1, Hesam Dehghani 3 and Ali Asghar Khajevandi 1,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Paper Title: Causal Analysis of Risk Perception in Iranian Coal Mining Workers: A Delphi and DEMATEL Fuzzy Approach
The paper provides a causal Analysis of risk perception among Iranian coal mining workers. By reviewing the literature, they identified 40 risk factors and later classified them into 5 broad categories: individual, organizational, environmental, occupational, and extra-organizational factors. Using the research methodologies of fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy DEMATEL they revealed the ranking of important factors such as safety culture (2.27), safety management style (2.09), safety attitude (2), personal protective equipment (0.46), and risk aversion (0.5). As per the authors' view, the present research may be helpful in providing effective solutions to managers and workers by improving risk understanding and reducing unsafe behaviours while working in coal mines.
General comments:
(a) The paper title may be modified as “Causal Analysis of Risk Perception of Iranian Coal Mining Workers using fuzzy based approaches of Delphi and DEMATEL” or “Causal Analysis of Risk Perception of Iranian Coal Mining Workers using fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy DEMATEL approaches”
(b) Please refer to the abstract line no.20: “Delphi” should be “fuzzy Delphi”
(c) Please refer to the abstract line no.22: “Dematel” should be “DEMATEL”
(d) Authors may add more keywords: coal mines risk perception, fuzzy Delphi, and fuzzy DEMATEL may be added.
(e) Please refer to line no.134: “ “Delphi and Fuzzy Dematel” should be “fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy DEMATEL”
(f) Please refer to Figure 1: Roadmap and steps of conducting the study: "Collection of questionnaires" should be "Collection of responses", "Defuzzing..." should be "Defuzzification of the..."
(g) Authors use Delphi in place of fuzzy Delphi and Dematel in place of DEMATEL throughout the manuscript; hence, it may be corrected accordingly.
(h) Reference [40] Hsu, T.; Yang, T. Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in the selection of advertising media. Journal of Management 576 and Systems 2000, 7, 19-39. The paper is about FAHP and not fuzzy Delphi
(i) Authors must provide TFN scale for fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy Delphi consensus table similarly for Fuzzy DEMATEL may be in the Appendix.
(j) Please refer to the abstract line no.186:”…the threshold limit was considered 3 according to the used spectrum.” It may be explained by reducing the threshold limit from the earlier used 3.5 [41] to 3.
(k) Please refer to abstract line no.201: “…a total of 23 variables were selected…” However, in the abstract line no.20 "In the next step, 24 variables..."
(l) The manuscript needs careful formatting for instance “2-1-, 2.-2-,2-2-1-.etc”, fuzzy methodology with equation numbers are displaced.
(m) The manuscript section titles need some acceptable common headings for instance: 1.1. Review of Previous Research may be modified to “Literature review”
(n) In the absence of questionnaires and evaluation tables it is difficult to correlate the graphical representation made through Figure 2 through Figure 5 and inferences drawn.
There are several typos and grammatical errors throughout the manuscript.
(a) “Figure1:” should be “Figure 1:” [Need a space in-between]
(b) Please refer to the abstract line no.183: "5-point Likert spectrum" should be "5-point Likert scale"
(c) Please refer to the abstract line no.185: “from 1 to 5. [41].” Should be “from 1 to 5 [41].”
(d) Please refer to the abstract line no.187: “…3 according to the used spectrum” should be “….3 according to the used spectrum.” (.) The full stop is missing. Spectrum may be replaced by scale.
(e) Please refer to line no.245“.. factors(table1).” Should be “... factors (Table 1).” [Spacing and capital letter]
(f) In Table 1: the heading has……”RP” authors used mixed R.P. and RP so needs uniformity, “time pressure” should be “Time pressure”. Authors may check other codes used for variables.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
we appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:
Point 1: The paper title may be modified as “Causal Analysis of Risk Perception of Iranian Coal Mining Workers using fuzzy based approaches of Delphi and DEMATEL” or “Causal Analysis of Risk Perception of Iranian Coal Mining Workers using fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy DEMATEL approaches”
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion.In the revision, the article tilte was revised.
Point 2: Please refer to the abstract line no.20: “Delphi” should be “fuzzy Delphi”
Response2: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 3: Please refer to the abstract line no.22: “Dematel” should be “DEMATEL”
Response3: Thank you for this suggestion.It was done.
Point 4: Authors may add more keywords: coal mines risk perception, fuzzy Delphi, and fuzzy DEMATEL may be added.
Response4: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 5: Please refer to line no.134: “ “Delphi and Fuzzy Dematel” should be “fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy DEMATEL
Response5: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 6: Please refer to Figure 1: Roadmap and steps of conducting the study: "Collection of questionnaires" should be "Collection of responses", "Defuzzing..." should be "Defuzzification of the..."
Response6: Thank you for this suggestion. It was done.
Point 7:Authors use Delphi in place of fuzzy Delphi and Dematel in place of DEMATEL throughout the manuscript; hence, it may be corrected accordingly.
Response7: Thank you for this suggestion.In the revision, it was done
Point 8: Reference [40] Hsu, T.; Yang, T. Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process in the selection of advertising media. Journal of Management 576 and Systems 2000, 7, 19-39. The paper is about FAHP and not fuzzy Delphi
Response8: Thank you for this suggestion. In the revision, it was corrected.
Point 9:Authors must provide TFN scale for fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy Delphi consensus table similarly for Fuzzy DEMATEL may be in the Appendix.
Response9: Thank you for this suggestion. In the revision, it was added(subsection3.2.2- table1)
Point 10: Please refer to abstract line no.201: “…a total of 23 variables were selected…” However, in the abstract line no.20 "In the next step, 24 variables..."
Response10: Thanks for raising this important point. It was corrected.
Point 11: The manuscript needs careful formatting for instance “2-1-, 2.-2-, 2-2-1-.etc”, fuzzy methodology with equation numbers are displaced.
Response11: Thank you for this valuable comment. It was done
Point 12: The manuscript section titles need some acceptable common headings for instance: 1.1. Review of Previous Research may be modified to “Literature review”
Response12: Thank you for this valuable comment. It was done
Point 13: In the absence of questionnaires and evaluation tables it is difficult to correlate the graphical representation made through Figure 2 through Figure 5 and inferences drawn.
Response13: Thank you for this valuable comment. Defuzzied Total-Relation Matrix table added to the appendix section. Figures 2 to 5 are the output of this table.
Point 14: “Figure1:” should be “Figure 1:” [Need a space in-between]
Response14: Thank you for this suggestion. It was done.
Point 15: Please refer to the abstract line no.183: "5-point Likert spectrum" should be "5-point Likert scale"
Response15: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 16: Please refer to the abstract line no.185: “from 1 to 5. [41].” Should be “from 1 to 5 [41].”
Response16: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 17: Please refer to the abstract line no.187: “…3 according to the used spectrum” should be “….3 according to the used spectrum.” (.) The full stop is missing. Spectrum may be replaced by scale.
Response17: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 18: Please refer to line no.245“.. factors(table1).” Should be “... factors (Table 1).” [Spacing and capital letter]
Response18: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 19: In Table 1: the heading has……”RP” authors used mixed R.P. and RP so needs uniformity, “time pressure” should be “Time pressure”. Authors may check other codes used for variables.
Response19: Thank you for this point. It was done
The manuscript was revised again by an experienced English language 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
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Greetings,
The paper is well written. However, it is necessary to make certain corrections in order to make the paper even better. The summary and introduction are well written, nothing needs to be changed in these selections. In the case of materials and methods, it is necessary to change the numbering, instead of dashes there should be dots. For example 2-1- should be 2.1. Explain how these risks are categorized. Since you said that there are 40 factors and that they are grouped into these groups, on what basis did you group them? Explain why only three experts and why they were chosen. Fuzzy Dematel methods should be explained in steps. Environmental variables have only three variables and the other variables have many more divisions. Explain why that is. Explain how the results were obtained in Table 2: Variables selected from fuzzy Delphi to study cause-effect relationships. Other parts of the score are well done. The discussion is supported by other research. In the conclusion, you should state what the limits of this research are and how they would be solved in future research.
All the best.
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: The paper is well written. However, it is necessary to make certain corrections in order to make the paper even better. The summary and introduction are well written, nothing needs to be changed in these selections. In the case of materials and methods, it is necessary to change the numbering, instead of dashes there should be dots. For example, 2-1- should be 2.1.
Response 1: Thank you for this point. It was done
Point 2: Explain how these risks are categorized. Since you said that there are 40 factors and that they are grouped into these groups, on what basis did you group them? Explain why only three experts and why they were chosen.
Response 21-: The classification of variables in 5 defined groups is based on the classification that exists for factors affecting performance in the field of safety and ergonomics, and it is also mentioned in similar studies.
Response 22-: The three people mentioned in the present study were to check the face validity of the fuzzy Delphi questionnaire.
Point 3: Fuzzy Dematel methods should be explained in steps
Response 3: This is an interesting perspective. It was explained in subsection3.3.1. (lines223-280)
Point 4: Explain how the results were obtained in Table 2: Variables selected from fuzzy Delphi to study cause-effect relationships
Response4: Thanks for raising this important point. In the revision, It was explained in subsection3.2.1. (lines160-221)
Point 5: In the conclusion, you should state what the limits of this research are and how they would be solved in future research.
Response5: Thank you for this direction. Limitations of this study and need for further researches were revised) lines520-530)
The manuscript was revised again by an experienced English language 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
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
General Assessment:
This paper presents an analysis of risk perception in Iranian coal mining workers by a Delphi and Dematel Fuzzy Approach. Although the research topic is interesting, academic contributions are weak and the obtained results are not convincing enough. Moreover, the paper is not well written as there are several language and format errors.
Major Comments:
1) Regarding the background of this study, the authors need to specify real-world applications to the mining industry in Iran.
2) The literature review should be enriched to be more up-to-date and more comprehensive.
3) The Delphi and Fuzzy Dematel methods should be described in detail.
4) Contributions and innovations of this study should be clearly highlighted.
5) How to guarantee the feasibility or correctness of the input data?
6) The analysis of results should be more convincing and insightful. For example, he results in Tables 1 and 2 should be improved.
Minor Comments:
1) Abstract should be greatly improved. It is not necessary to be too specific or too quantitative indeed. For example, it is hard to figure out “the cut point of 3”, “the variables of safety culture (2.27), safety management style (2.09)”, etc.
2) Abstract: add the full stop for the last sentence.
3) Keywords: change “,” to “;”.
4) Line 55: change “Risk Perception (R.P.)” to “Risk Perception (RP)”. Then, keep the abbreviation consistent after its first definition.
5) Figure 1: need to improve the content and caption of Figure 1. For example, some arrows are missing.
6) Section 2.1 about Extraction of influential factors on risk perception should be improved by giving more description of 40 factors.
7) Section 2.3: improve the format of equations.
8) Table 1 has several errors.
9) More analysis of Table 2 should be presented.
10) Line 423: fix the font format of “about hearing loss”.
Extensive editing of English language is required.
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: Regarding the background of this study, the authors need to specify real-world applications to the mining industry in Iran.
Response 1: Thank you for this comment. we attempt to deal with this issue. we now include in our introduction and discussion sections. It was done at the end of introduction(lines115-140). It was done at the end of discussion section(lines497-508)
Point 2: The literature review should be enriched to be more up-to-date and more comprehensive.
Response 2: this is an interesting perspective. we attempt to deal with this issue. The literature review was revised based on topic(lines71-96). Up-to-date references were replaced in this section
Point 3: The Delphi and Fuzzy Dematel methods should be described in detail.
Response 3: Thanks for raising this important point. In the revision, we attempted to describe the Delphi and Fuzzy Dematel methods in subsections 3.2.1 and 3.3.1(lines160-280)
Point 4: Contributions and innovations of this study should be clearly highlighted.
Response 4: Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions. It was explained in end of introduction (lines 129-140).
Point 5: How to guarantee the feasibility or correctness of the input data?
Response 5: Thanks for raising this important point. In this study, the correctness of the input information is guaranteed based on the following steps.
- Choosing a database such as Scopus according to the appropriate coverage in the field of study
- Choosing the appropriate search strategy
- Formation of a focal group of experts in the field of safety in underground coal mines for initial screening of identified variables
- Using a semi-structured questionnaire in a fuzzy Delphi study to provide the possibility of proposing new variables
it was explained in subsection 3.1(lines 150-181) and subsection3.2.2(line 175)
Point 6: The analysis of results should be more convincing and insightful. For example, he results in Tables 1 and 2 should be improved
Response 6: This is another good point. In the revision, Table 1 was changed to Figure 3
Minor Comments:
Point 7: Abstract should be greatly improved. It is not necessary to be too specific or too quantitative indeed. For example, it is hard to figure out “the cut point of 3”, “the variables of safety culture (2.27), safety management style (2.09)”, etc.
Response 7: Thanks for raising this important point. In the revision, we tried to deal with this issue.
Point 8: Abstract: add the full stop for the last sentence.
Response8: Thank you for this point. It was done.
Point 9: Keywords: change “,” to “;”.
Response9: Thanks for raising this important point. It was done
Point10: Line 55: change “Risk Perception (R.P.)” to “Risk Perception (RP)”. Then, keep the abbreviation consistent after its first definition.
Response10: Thank you for this valuable comment. It was done
Point11: Figure 1: need to improve the content and caption of Figure 1. For example, some arrows are missing.
Response11: Thank you for this point. In the revision, It was done.
Point12: Section 2.3: improve the format of equations.
Response12: Thank you for this suggestion. It was done
Point13: Table 1 has several errors.
Response13: Table 1 content was revised and changed to Figure 3
Point14: More analysis of Table 2 should be presented.
Response 14: Thanks for raising this important point. Table 2 is the output of fuzzy Delphi study. It is mentioned in line 290.
Point15: Line 423: fix the font format of “about hearing loss”.
Response15:Thank you for this valuable comment. It was done
The manuscript was revised again by an experienced English language 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
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for your updated version. Looking at the modified version, I found most of the comments addressed successfully except the following, which may be addressed:
Point 9:Authors must provide TFN scale for fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy Delphi consensus table similarly for Fuzzy DEMATEL may be in the Appendix.
Response9: Thank you for this suggestion. In the revision, it was added(subsection3.2.2- table1)
Remarks: Thank you for providing the TFN scale. Authors should provide Fuzzy consensus tables for both Fuzzy Delphi and Fuzzy DEMATEL and final evaluation Tables as well.
Point 13: In the absence of questionnaires and evaluation tables, it is difficult to correlate the graphical representation made through Figure 2 through Figure 5 and inferences drawn.
Response13: Thank you for this valuable comment. Defuzzied Total-Relation Matrix table added to the appendix section. Figures 2 to 5 are the output of this table
Remarks: Thank you for providing the defuzzied Total-Relation Matrix table, but it is incomplete.
New comment:
(a) Please refer to various equation, the variable discussed in text are not matching with variables in the equations, I found them in italics, bold etc.
Thanks for modifying the comments.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
We appreciate the constructive comments of the respected reviewer. The following are our point-by-point responses:
Point 9: Authors must provide TFN scale for fuzzy Delphi and fuzzy Delphi consensus table similarly for Fuzzy DEMATEL may be in the Appendix.
Response9: Thanks for raising this important point. It was explained (Fuzzy Delphi) in the subsection3.2.1. (lines 219-225).
Point 13: In the absence of questionnaires and evaluation tables, it is difficult to correlate the graphical representation made through Figure 2 through Figure 5 and inferences drawn.
Response13: Thank you once again for your valuable comments and suggestions. Tables A1, A2 and A3 (direct, normalized and total matrix) were added to the appendix section and its relationship with figures 4 to 7 (in the revised version) was specified (lines 259-286).
Point3: Please refer to various equation, the variable discussed in text are not matching with variables in the equations, I found them in italics, bold etc.
Response3: Thank you for this point. It was done. All equations were revised.
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
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Greetings,
The paper has been corrected in accordance with the reviews. Now it can be accepted.
All the best.
Author Response
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
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have carefully improved the paper according to our comments. I think the revised paper could be accepted after extensive editing of English language and format (e.g., format of references, figures and equations).
Extensive editing of English language required。
Author Response
Thank you for this valuable comment, The manuscript was revised again by an experienced English language editor.Its certificate has been sent to the academic 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
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
