A Model Proposal for Measuring Performance in Occupational Health and Safety in Forest Fires

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your answers to my comments.

This version of the document is much more complete and the document quality has significantly improved. However, I still have some suggestions and comments.

- In the abstract, the sentence: “the alternative P5 consistently exhibited superior performance” is too specific for an abstract section, as readers do not know the meaning of P5;

- In the abstract, the sentence: “…The static variables considered are…”. It would also be important to explain the dynamic variables.

- Table 2: Correct “Criterions”; Use always the dot as decimal separator;

- Table 4: Use always the dot as decimal separator.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

First and foremost, we would like to express our gratitude for your feedback and evaluations.

• In the abstract section, we clarified the term "the alternative P5 consistently exhibited superior performance" for better understanding. Necessary modifications have been made to provide a clearer context for the term "P5".

• Similarly, in the abstract where we referenced static variables, we have updated the text to also explain what the dynamic variables entail.

• We have corrected the word "Criterions" in Table 2.

• For Table 2 and Table 4, we've made adjustments to consistently use the dot as the decimal separator, as per your suggestion.

All the changes made in the document have been highlighted in red for your convenience.

We hope that with these modifications, our article meets your expectations and further improves in quality. Thank you again for your valuable input and evaluations.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Abstract - P5 is not giving any information to the reader, please replace acronym with "one of metodologies" and please give a measure of preformance

 

Introduction is much too long. It also, in my opinion covers some materials and methods parts, for example paraghraph that starts with: "The primary objectives..." better fits to materials and methods.

It is strange that two paragraphs statst with the same:

"In summary, forest fires..."

"In conclusion, forest fires..."

After summarizing something you can not colclude it again.

 

It is not correct that Table 1 is few pages after the first mention.

"Table 1 presents a list of criteria arranged in order of significance." Please be more precise whether it is ascending or descending order. Please mention it also in Table 1 caption

 

There is no d in equation 1 nor 2. You state that mu is a function of d, but the mathematical formulation states that it is not.

              

In the second last line of 2.1 d should be italic.

 

Equation 1 - the asterisk * should be replaced with dot product (\cdot) or cross product (\times)

 

Equation 2 - squares are at the same position as indexes or symbols should be in parenthesis.

 

 

Please check decimal separator in whole work since there is a problem in Table 2

 

Between table 1 and table 2 - again asterisk

 

Table 4 is inacceptable

Table 9 also has problems

 

You should not use Times New Roman font.

 

In fact, the table 4 do not allow to evaluate the work. It is very difficult to distinguish between P... and altenatives etc. It must be improved. And the description of it also must be improved.

 

 

The study is fair, nice and presents results that can be significant, but the minor issues in the whole work and major issure related to description of table 4 make it difficult to understand.

I also have some thoughts about the language. The problem is that it is correct, or more precisely speaking too corect. When I was in secondary school, at english classes i was teached to write in such way, with lot of adverbs, complex sentences and so on. After I came to university everything they told me before had to be forgotten, and my advisors expalined me that it is not scientific writting. I am not sure if I ever seen in any paper few of words as in this paper. The paper have to be useful for others. IF you understand it, fine, but you are not writing for you. You need to speak in a language as simple as possible, but not simplier. Words like (I will only refer to the abstract): endeavors, A notable, corroborate, ramification, imperativeness, fortifying, etc.etc. are very nice ornaments, but are also making in some sense this work "colosed-acess", i.e., frequency of using such word is very low.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your invaluable feedback on our manuscript. Taking your comments into consideration, we have thoroughly revised our paper. I'm pleased to outline the specific corrections we made:

1. In the abstract, the term "P5" has been replaced with "one of the methods used" for better clarity.
2. We have shortened the introduction and relocated some of its contents to more appropriate sections.
3. The repetitive starting sentences in two paragraphs have been revised.
4. The position of Table 1 has been adjusted to be closer to its first mention in the text.
5. We've clearly specified the order (ascending or descending) of criteria in Table 1.
6. Equations 1 and 2 were reviewed, and the missing "d" parameter was included.
7. In section 2.1, the "d" parameter has been italicized as per your suggestion.
8. The asterisks in the equations were replaced with appropriate mathematical symbols.
9. We double-checked the decimal separators throughout the paper and rectified the issue in Table 2.
10. We fixed the asterisk usage between Table 1 and Table 2.
11. Table 4 and its description underwent revision for clarity.
12. Issues in Table 9 have been corrected.
13. We ensured that the Times New Roman font was not used in our manuscript.
14. Addressing your feedback about the language, we've made efforts to rephrase the text in a more comprehensible English, avoiding overly complicated terms.

We hope these adjustments improve the overall quality and clarity of our manuscript. Once again, we appreciate your constructive feedback.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Thank you for addressing the comments. I am satisfied with the edits and I think the manuscript is ready for publication. Thanks!

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We are pleased to see that you are satisfied with the changes made in response to your evaluations. Thank you for your feedback and the positive confirmation regarding our manuscript's readiness for publication.

Best regards,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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,

- In my opinion, the paper is not well written.

- The introduction section is a general introduction to forest fires and does not refer to other studies similar to the one presented.

- References [14-17] are not cited in the text.

- The conclusions section is also unclear. For example, the reason for including the following text is not clear: “The prevention of accidents during geothermal well drilling is of significant economic and social importance, particularly given the growing significance of this clean energy source within the energy sector.”

- Conclusions and recommendations are generic and are not presented in a organized and synthetic way.

Author Response

Dear Review,

The objective of this study is to employ multi-criteria decision-making techniques (MCDMT) to evaluate and rank the achievements of occupational health and safety within ten forest management directorates affiliated with the regional forest directorate in a province of Turkey. In addition to this objective, determining to what extent performance measurement is contingent upon certain criteria and understanding how businesses fare in relation to these criteria, whether favorably or unfavorably, compared to other businesses, will inevitably yield a series of significant beneficial outputs. These aforementioned positive or negative aspects will highlight what businesses have done right or wrong concerning these criteria, thus revealing the rights and wrongs in terms of occupational health and safety. Within the scope of the research, each business's situation for each criterion, their rights and wrongs, and the corrective and preventive actions needed for their wrongs will be proposed as recommendations. According to the activity report of the General Directorate of Forestry (OGM) for the year 2021, between 2017 and 2022, there were 13,458 forest fires in Turkey, which resulted in the burning of 189,443 hectares of forestland (OGM 2021 Annual Activity Report). While the exact number of people injured or lost their lives due to these fires cannot be definitively determined, it is known that on July 28 and 29, 2021 alone, eight people, including two forest workers, lost their lives in the fires. Media outlets report that in past fires, numerous forest workers, volunteers, and citizens lost their lives or were injured. This fact alone demonstrates the paramount importance of this research. If the problems identified within the scope of the research can be solved by implementing the proposed solutions, both the loss of life and injuries will decrease, as will the number of forest fires and the amount of forestland affected by these fires. This study represents a novel attempt to measure the occupational health and safety (OHS) performance of forest management directorates within the research field. Based on this context, revisions have been made in the article.

Best regrads.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

OHS should be explained before first appear, not at second.
The same issue with AHP in section 2.
PEase check whole manuscript for such issues.

Equations are not numbered hence it is hard to follow.
Unacceptable is not describing the variables - section 2.1
There is no d on right hand side in equations in section 2.1
In general paragraph 2.1 does not give perspective of AHP, and especially focus on fuzzy AHP.
Section 2.2 also does not give useful information.
Section 2.4 - please describe, in answer to report, not in manuscript, how using different word processor would affect the results. Please discuss how usage of suite Microsoft Office 2016 Home and Student instead of Profesional Plus would affect the results and how usage of Libre Office 7.4.0?
Tables need to be formated
What does it mean: "Super Decision should be given weigt."
In english language, the dot is decimal separator, not comma.
What is Phi? What is Phi+, Phi-?
Conclusions are vague.

It is difficult to follow the thoughts. It would be better to edit it, but not only check spelling, but rather to ensure that your ideas are presented in the most logical and consistent format.

Author Response

Dear Review,

The objective of this study is to employ multi-criteria decision-making techniques (MCDMT) to evaluate and rank the achievements of occupational health and safety within ten forest management directorates affiliated with the regional forest directorate in a province of Turkey. In addition to this objective, determining to what extent performance measurement is contingent upon certain criteria and understanding how businesses fare in relation to these criteria, whether favorably or unfavorably, compared to other businesses, will inevitably yield a series of significant beneficial outputs. These aforementioned positive or negative aspects will highlight what businesses have done right or wrong concerning these criteria, thus revealing the rights and wrongs in terms of occupational health and safety. Within the scope of the research, each business's situation for each criterion, their rights and wrongs, and the corrective and preventive actions needed for their wrongs will be proposed as recommendations. According to the activity report of the General Directorate of Forestry (OGM) for the year 2021, between 2017 and 2022, there were 13,458 forest fires in Turkey, which resulted in the burning of 189,443 hectares of forestland (OGM 2021 Annual Activity Report). While the exact number of people injured or lost their lives due to these fires cannot be definitively determined, it is known that on July 28 and 29, 2021 alone, eight people, including two forest workers, lost their lives in the fires. Media outlets report that in past fires, numerous forest workers, volunteers, and citizens lost their lives or were injured. This fact alone demonstrates the paramount importance of this research. If the problems identified within the scope of the research can be solved by implementing the proposed solutions, both the loss of life and injuries will decrease, as will the number of forest fires and the amount of forestland affected by these fires. This study represents a novel attempt to measure the occupational health and safety (OHS) performance of forest management directorates within the research field.  Based on this context, revisions have been made in the article.

Best Regrads

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Summary: In the manuscript titled “A Model Proposal for Measuring Performance in Occupational Health and Safety in Forest”, the research aims to prioritize occupational health and safety in forest management directorates in Turkey using multi-criteria decision-making techniques. A two-stage model was developed to measure the OHS performance index. The author establishes a total of seventeen sub-criteria accompanied by four primary criteria which were evaluated using the analytical hierarchy process technique (AHP) and a fuzzy analytical hierarchy process (F-AHP). Thereafter, the Promethee approach was utilized to determine the exposure rate.

I think the topic covered in this manuscript has merits and I advise performing major revisions to improve the clarity of manuscript before publication.

Major revision

1) Section 2 – This section needs more work to provide the readers and research community a reproducible approach. For example, the manuscript will highly benefit from citing the source of how the main and sub-criteria methods in Table 1 is comprehensive or what factor is considered in selecting these criteria

2) Section 3, Tables 2-10 – the manuscript needs more work in explaining how the number in the respective table are arrived at and explaining in detail the finding of each tabular information. The manuscript needs more discussion surrounding the research methodology and results to make it more reproducible. Also, the author is recommended to add visual aid such as hierarchical charts, and sensitivity graphs from SuperDecision (V3.2) software package used in this study to promote clarity.

Minor revisions

1) Abstract – Consider adding a quantitative problem description and research conclusion in the abstract. For example, state what is the forest fire rate in the directorate of interest and state the finding on the most and least impact criteria found by the study with corresponding percent values.

2) Abstract - Consider mentioning the full form of PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations) as it’s the first time mentioning the acronyms in the manuscript.

3) Page 2 – “The primary variables considered are land use and land cover, followed by slope, vegetation type, and soil……..”. The word primary need to be changed to Static as the comparison is between static and dynamic variables

4) Page 3, section 2- “The table presents a list of criteria arranged in order of significance.” Please mention Table 1

5) Page 3 – “The Chang, Kwong Bai, and square mean methods are used to convert fuzzy numbers into result vectors in fuzzy AHP” Please consider adding more details on Chang, Kwong Bai method to provide context to the readers and cite the reference articles

6) Page 4, Table 1 – Few Hyphenations are missing in the sub-criteria column for A4, D2, D3, and D4.

7) Page 5, table 2 – Please consider explaining how the group weight is calculated

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Review,

The objective of this study is to employ multi-criteria decision-making techniques (MCDMT) to evaluate and rank the achievements of occupational health and safety within ten forest management directorates affiliated with the regional forest directorate in a province of Turkey. In addition to this objective, determining to what extent performance measurement is contingent upon certain criteria and understanding how businesses fare in relation to these criteria, whether favorably or unfavorably, compared to other businesses, will inevitably yield a series of significant beneficial outputs. These aforementioned positive or negative aspects will highlight what businesses have done right or wrong concerning these criteria, thus revealing the rights and wrongs in terms of occupational health and safety. Within the scope of the research, each business's situation for each criterion, their rights and wrongs, and the corrective and preventive actions needed for their wrongs will be proposed as recommendations. According to the activity report of the General Directorate of Forestry (OGM) for the year 2021, between 2017 and 2022, there were 13,458 forest fires in Turkey, which resulted in the burning of 189,443 hectares of forestland (OGM 2021 Annual Activity Report). While the exact number of people injured or lost their lives due to these fires cannot be definitively determined, it is known that on July 28 and 29, 2021 alone, eight people, including two forest workers, lost their lives in the fires. Media outlets report that in past fires, numerous forest workers, volunteers, and citizens lost their lives or were injured. This fact alone demonstrates the paramount importance of this research. If the problems identified within the scope of the research can be solved by implementing the proposed solutions, both the loss of life and injuries will decrease, as will the number of forest fires and the amount of forestland affected by these fires. This study represents a novel attempt to measure the occupational health and safety (OHS) performance of forest management directorates within the research field.  Based on this context, revisions have been made in the article.

Best Regrads

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

In my opinion, authors should respond to reviewers and explain changes made to the manuscript.

The majority of the reviewer’s comments/sugestions are not addressed.

The main change in the manuscript was the inclusion of a large paragraph in the introductory section justifying the importance of the study. The other changes were minor changes and corrections to the text, not responding to reviewers' comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback on the paper. We have made the necessary revisions based on your feedback. We have restructured the introduction section to provide a more focused and specific introduction, including references to relevant studies in the field.

Additionally, we have addressed the missing citations for references [14-17] in the text. We carefully reviewed the manuscript and ensured that all necessary citations were included to support our statements and findings.

Regarding the conclusions section, we have revised it to provide a clearer and more concise summary. We removed the unrelated statement: "The prevention of accidents during geothermal well drilling is of significant economic and social importance, particularly given the growing significance of this clean energy source within the energy sector." This revision allows us to present the key findings and their direct implications in a more focused manner, aligning with the main objective of the paper.

Finally, we have reorganized the conclusions and recommendations section to provide a more structured and synthetic presentation. This modification aims to enhance the clarity and impact of our main takeaways, enabling readers to easily grasp the key points.

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, as it has greatly contributed to the improvement of our paper. We are pleased to submit the revised version incorporating your suggestions.

Best regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is advised that the author provide a separate response to each comment of the reviewer stating what is added in the manuscript. The majority of the previous comments are not addressed

It appears that only one large paragraph is added which highlights why this research is important but no changes are done in Section 2 which is where the reviewers are pointing toward. Also, change to the Abstract, introduction, and conclusion are only paraphrased without adding any in new information. Please consider addressing the previous reviewers comments

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback on the paper. We have made the necessary revisions based on your feedback. We have restructured the introduction section to provide a more focused and specific introduction, including references to relevant studies in the field.

Regarding the conclusions section, we have revised it to provide a clearer and more concise summary.

Finally, we have reorganized the conclusions and recommendations section to provide a more structured and synthetic presentation. This modification aims to enhance the clarity and impact of our main takeaways, enabling readers to easily grasp the key points.

We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback, as it has greatly contributed to the improvement of our paper. We are pleased to submit the revised version incorporating your suggestions.

Best regards

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for your answers to my comments.

The 3rd version of the document is now more complete and the document quality has significantly improved. However, I have some suggestions:

Use the dot as decimal separator;

Pag. 5 - Equations must be numbered. Symbols in the equations must be explained;

Pag. 6 - Correct the sentence: “For this, my site has to be updated to include the hierarchy of primary and sub-criteria.”.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing the document and providing your valuable feedback. We are grateful for your constructive comments, which have been instrumental in enhancing the document's quality. We have carefully considered each of your suggestions, and we are pleased to inform you that the following changes have been made in the 3rd version of the document. We sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in reviewing the document. Your input has significantly contributed to its improvement, and we are grateful for your thorough evaluation. If you have any further suggestions or feedback, we are more than willing to consider them in future versions of the document.

Best regards.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors are requested to provide a comment-by-comment response to the below initial reviewer's comments which are not completed in the second round of revisions as well. Please provide enough details on the research methodology and result to make it reproducible.

Major revision

1) Section 2 – This section needs more work to provide the readers and research community a reproducible approach. For example, the manuscript will highly benefit from citing the source of how the main and sub-criteria methods in Table 1 is comprehensive or what factor is considered in selecting these criteria

2) Section 3, Tables 2-10 – the manuscript needs more work in explaining how the number in the respective table are arrived at and explaining in detail the finding of each tabular information. The manuscript needs more discussion surrounding the research methodology and results to make it more reproducible. Also, the author is recommended to add visual aid such as hierarchical charts, and sensitivity graphs from SuperDecision (V3.2) software package used in this study to promote clarity.

Minor revisions

1) Abstract – Consider adding a quantitative problem description and research conclusion in the abstract. For example, state what is the forest fire rate in the directorate of interest and state the finding on the most and least impact criteria found by the study with corresponding percent values.

2) Abstract - Consider mentioning the full form of PROMETHEE (Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations) as it’s the first time mentioning the acronyms in the manuscript.

3) Page 2 – “The primary variables considered are land use and land cover, followed by slope, vegetation type, and soil……..”. The word primary need to be changed to Static as the comparison is between static and dynamic variables

4) Page 3, section 2- “The table presents a list of criteria arranged in order of significance.” Please mention Table 1

5) Page 3 – “The Chang, Kwong Bai, and square mean methods are used to convert fuzzy numbers into result vectors in fuzzy AHP” Please consider adding more details on Chang, Kwong Bai method to provide context to the readers and cite the reference articles

6) Page 4, Table 1 – Few Hyphenations are missing in the sub-criteria column for A4, D2, D3, and D4.

7) Page 5, table 2 – Please consider explaining how the group weight is calculated

 Moderate editing of the English grammar and sentence structure is required.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We have thoroughly revised our manuscript in response to your comments and have highlighted the changes in yellow for easy tracking. We appreciate your valuable comments and believe that they have significantly improved our manuscript. We hope that the changes we made have addressed all of your concerns.

Best regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx