Health and Safety Proposal to Reduce Risks in the Construction of a School
, Clinton Sumner Campos Coronel, Luis Eduardo Ancajima Gaona, Jeanpierre Fernando Delgado Ventura, Dimas Hugo Flores Montero and Walter Enrrique Huilca Alcántara
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
The paper addresses a very important topic but it serious lacks in all areas of a scientific article. It is more like a report rather than a research article.
Revise the paper and write it as per scientific research article style. Results are good but needs to improve the presentation.
Moderate changes required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This article attempts to establish a health and safety proposal to reduce risk in school construction. Relevant literature on the topic has not been covered and no research gap has been developed. Specifically, there is no clarity around the health and safety proposal, planning and risk reduction. Most literature cited is from bachelor’s and master’s theses, which is not the right approach to use secondary referencing. There is no clear connection of hypotheses with relevant literature. Both discussion and findings are not coherent and compelling towards contribution to knowledge. Results are presented in a manner which is difficult to develop a proper understanding. There is no proper explanation for the selection of research methods and analysis approaches. The sample size is very low which questions the selection of the analysis. The conclusion only repeats the aspects from the discussion without making any valuable contribution. This study lacks originality as the topic has already been investigated extensively. However, the overall structure of the article is appropriate but some of the content is presented in a non-English language. There is a lack of coherence throughout the article.
This article seems to be translated from non-English language and there are still traces within the content which are hard to understand.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1. About English in the manuscript
English grammar in manuscripts needs to be significantly improved, including spelling and fixed terminology.
2. About the framework of the article
(1) Check whether there are Spaces in the middle of chapter and section titles.
(2) The content is not coherent, the logic is not smooth
3. About graphs and tables
(1) The form format should be unified, and there is no ":" in table 1.
(2) Explain what the "X" in Figure 1 stands for.
(3) Adjust the size of figures in Figure 2 and Figure 4 without overlapping. Figure 3, Figure 5 The ordinate numbers are appropriately enlarged. Figures and English are in New Roman format. Please ask the authors to read through the whole text and make changes to similar issues.
4. About the content of the manuscript
(1) The research object of this paper is the risk assessment of school construction, and it is suggested to add relevant examples about schools in the background.
(2) It is suggested to reduce the existing content and add the research significance of this project in the introduction.
(3) In hypothesis testing, explanatory significance and 0.05 are compared to draw the reason for accepting the conclusion of the hypothesis. Explain terms such as Nagerkerke coefficient.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
There is no response file attached and there are still few suggestions to be incorporated in the paper.
Moderate changes needed.
Author Response
Point 1. The article has been modified and has been made following the style of a scientific research article.
Point 2. The English language has been chosen to provide a better presentation to the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
The response letter is not complete. It is hard to review the revised version and track the changes as per the comments.
Author Response
Point 1: The relevant literature on the subject has not been covered.
Response 1: A comprehensive review of the relevant literature on the subject has been carried out.
Point 2: No research gap has developed.
Response 2: The development of identified research gaps has been addressed.
Point 3: There is no clarity around the proposal for health and safety, planning and risk reduction.
Response 3: More clarity has been provided regarding the health and safety proposal, as well as planning and risk reduction.
Point 4: Most of the cited literature comes from bachelor's and master's theses.
Response 4: The source of cited literature has been diversified, incorporating more solid and relevant references.
Point 5: There is no clear connection of the hypotheses with the relevant literature.
Response 5: A clear connection has been established between the hypotheses raised and the relevant literature.
Point 6: Both the discussion and the findings are not coherent or convincing to contribute to knowledge.
Response 6: Both the discussion and the findings have been restructured for compelling coherence and to contribute to knowledge.
Point 7: The results are presented in a way that it is difficult to develop a proper understanding.
Response 7: The results are presented in a more accessible way to facilitate proper understanding.
Point 8: There is no adequate explanation for the selection of research methods and analysis approaches.
Response 8: A detailed explanation has been included to support the selection of research methods and analytical approaches used.
Point 9: The sample size is very low, which questions the selection of the analysis.
Response 9: The sample represents the total study population, so it is reliable for analysis
Point 10: The conclusion only repeats the aspects of the discussion without making any valuable contribution.
Response 10: The conclusion has been reformulated to offer valuable contributions and not repeat aspects already discussed.
Point 11: This study lacks originality since the topic has already been extensively researched.
Response 11: An innovative approach has been incorporated to address the issue, highlighting the originality of the study.
Point 12: The general structure of the article is adequate, but some of the content is presented in a language other than English.
Response 12: The English language has been improved
Point 13: There is a lack of coherence throughout the article.
Response 13: A complete review of the article has been done to ensure consistency throughout the article.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors need to mention the line number and page number where the improvements were made in the manuscript, by addressing the reviewer's comments. In the current version, it is hard to understand the efforts made by authors.
