Enhancing Sustainability through Analysis and Prevention: A Study of Fatal Accidents on Trap Boats within the Commercial Fishing Industry
, Kyung-Jin Ryu 1, Seung-Hyun Lee 1, Kyoung-Hoon Lee 2, Seong-Hun Kim 2 and Yoo-Won Lee 2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors.
This paper touches the very important problem and for this reason should be published. Analyses were passed logically and not commonplace, and besides they are leaning on the rich dataset. The all argument theory-based on Bayesian Network Technique I consider valuable and correct. Somehow one can discuss about this, whether the value of the financial compensation for the death or the contusion resides with the measure of the meaning of particular events. Anyway this is the interesting and equal base for comparisons of different events.
However the article seems to be incoherent, as content of parts from 1 to 5 seems be not logical background for the content presented in the part number 6. In the first part of the paper, authors correctly and logically enumerated the all dependences of Bayesian network and shows the influence of preventive (to look, for example fig. 11) activities. The however general foundation that preventive activities and checklist would influence in 50% each can be discussable. Interesting would be to verify, whether other proportion among these factors causes other results.
The instead all part introduced as the number 6 seems for me trivial, is well-known and not results out of enumerations presented earlier
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer Recommendation and Comments for manuscript sustainability-2644392-peer-review-v1.pdf with the title: “Enhancing Sustainability through Analysis and Prevention: A 2 Study of Fatal Accidents in Trap Boats within the Commercial 3 Fishing Industry”, authors: Su-Hyung Kim, Kyung-Jin Ryu, Seung-Hyun Lee, Kyoung-Hoon Lee, Seong-Hun Kim and Yoo-Won Lee.
This is manuscript is an interesting scientific paper that analyzes Sustainability through Analysis and Prevention of Fatal Accidents in Trap Boats within the Commercial Fishing Industry. With totally 22 references, authors review relevant literature in this domain.
The text is clearly written and the graphical interpretation of the results clearly provides insight into the results obtained. The structure, content, and concept of the research work, as well as the achievements, correspond to the new nonpublished article.
The introduction and literature review is clear and consists of relevant literature data and analyses. Some improvement can be done due to some not up to date information. The review of paragraph is missing at the end of introduction
The research methodology is stated in paragraph 2, while the material and methods are presented in paragraphs 3 and 4. Paragraph 4 data analysis itself is part of the results of this research. Authors should present their research in a clear methodological way so that the steps of the research and the results themselves are clear to the reader. I believe that it is necessary to clarify the methodology and clearly define the research steps listed in the abstract with the content of the text itself.
Chapter 6 describes preventive measures. It is necessary to explain in what way and on the basis of which post-pack measures, research these measures are proposed.
In chapter 7 there is no discussion, only the research results are listed. I suggest that the authors combine chapter 7 and 8.
The paper did not clearly state how the FSA was applied, so it was necessary to state and explain it more clearly and precisely.
The main comments that I find useful for improving the quality of the article are presented below:
Finding 1: Line 28. Relevant data of 24000 deaths is from analyses done 2000. It is necessary to mentioned new data.
Finding 2: Line 101. It is missing the review of manuscript paragraphs.
Finding 3: Paragraph 2 is closer to be Methodology, and paragraph 3 for analysed data base.
Finding 4: Line 236. Table 2 cannot confirm state in sentence in line 235 and 236. Could you explain clearly?
Finding 5: Line 257. It is missing “/” for Injury in year 2019.
Finding 6: Paragraph 5.1. is input data and should be in paragraph “Material and Methods”.
Finally, I believe that it is a good research that has an adequate database, a structured questionnaire, appropriate methods and that it is necessary to organize the work better methodologically before its publication. I motivate the authors to clearly state the methodology of the research itself in order to improve the work that could be published in a quality journal such as Sustainability.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors(1) The relationship between the subject of the study and 'sustainability' needs to be explained in this study, in which a guide has been developed to reduce deaths caused by accidents, especially in this industry, by improving occupational health and safety conditions in fishing. (2) The article is too long. An important reason for this situation is the repetitions within the article. The article should be revised to eliminate these repetitions. For example, section 4.2 on the evaluation of survey results can be given with just a single table. (3) A map of the study area (giving its location on Earth) must be added to the text. (4) The fishing method (trap fishing) examined should be given with the help of a figure if necessary. (5) There are many errors in the article: capital letters in the sentence, abbreviations that are not given in full form when first used, mathematical operators used in the sentence, etc. (6) The Bayesian network software used should also be stated in the bibliography.
Comments on the Quality of English Language…
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study innovatively applies the Bayesian networks methodology to the study of Fatal Accidents in Trap Boats. The findings interesting, and the conclusion relevant. The topic and findings of the manuscript are therefore in principle suitable for this journal. However, there are some issues to be addressed to highlight the workload, contributions and originalities of this research.
Additional comments:
1. Using the terms used in maritime terminology differently throughout the article may cause confusion for the readers. Authors should pay attention to this. For example, marine accident (maritime accident).
2. In line 190, "Conditional probability is the probability of an event leading to another event", "leading" implies causal logic. However, although Bayesian Networks are said to be able to represent cause and effect, the use of "conditional probability" is not the same as causality. Judea Pearl, the father of the Bayesian network, mentioned that the exploration of causal theory is divided into three stages: Seeing (Association), Doing (Intervention), and Imaging (Counterfactual). The Bayesian network you have constructed so far still mainly uses the probability distribution between the data to find out the association, which is still in the first stage, and not the true or robust "cause and effect". Suggest that the author change the expression to something more precise. For more information on cause and effect, you can refer to Pearl's book The Book of Why.
3. The statement in Lines 221-222 that "the number of deaths was the highest in trap fishery among the five main types of fishing at 87 out of 1,790 (4.86%) " is inconsistent with Table 1. It should be "the highest mortality rate". The author should correct this.
4. There are some problems with the structure of this study. For example, section 3.1, "Status of Fatal Accidents by Type of Fishing" should have been placed in the context of the study in Section 1, explaining why this paper is looking at "Trap Boats".
5. Why is the indirect cause mentioned named "media" in Line 328 and "media and man factors are closely associated" in Line 406. Environment (wind, waves) and human factors are closely associated? Please explain. It is also suggested that "man factors" be changed to "human factors".
6. This study did not test the validity of the Bayesian Network structure. Therefore, the robustness of the study's conclusions is also questionable, and it is hoped that the authors will add experiments or evidence to validate the Bayesian Network structure. The authors may wish to refer to these studies.
l https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.113563
7. Where is the "In practice, for vessels weighing less than 20, 483 tons, 'safety work training' is obligatory only for executive seafarers such as captains and 484 officers, and not mandatory for general seafarers" described in Lines 483-485 from? Are there references? If there are references or sources, they can add credibility.
8. Suggested to add a reference to BN's software mentioned in Line 499.
9. How did the data in Table 9 come about? Were they given by experts? Were they obtained from questionnaires or insurance data as mentioned in the text? Please give a detailed explanation.
10. It is proposed to replace the textual description in Section 4.2.1 with some graphical representations to improve the readability of the article.
11. The authors should strengthen the background, literature review and citation lists with recent (i.e., 2021-2023) publications. For example, Sustainability, Ocean Engineering, Journal of Marine Science & Engineering recently published several papers on the subject of Marine Accident, Bayesian Network, etc.
l https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115839
l https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2023.115048
l https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2019.1672419
l https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2019.1573457
l https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2020.1827486
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor, I can confirm that Authors improve manuscript and I accept it to publish.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study, which gives all the details of the simple calculations made, has been written longer than necessary. The authors must find a way to simplify this work. In addition, the study is based on the reflections of accidents on occupational safety rather than their environmental effects. As such, it becomes very difficult to establish a relationship with the subject as a whole, both in economic and environmental aspects of sustainability.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll my comments have been addressed.
