Developing an Alternate Mineral Transportation System by Evaluating Risk of Truck Accidents in the Mining Industry—A Critical Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

1. Why DEMATEL method is selected for evaluating risk rather than others, such as FMEA, in this research? The relevant comparison and discussion should be described in Section 1.

2. The relevant definitions of the fuzzy approach should be described in detail in Section 3.

Author Response

1. Why DEMATEL method is selected for evaluating risk rather than others, such as FMEA, in this research? The relevant comparison and discussion should be described in Section 1.

Response: Thank you so much for reviewing the manuscript and giving your valuable inputs to improve its quality.

Upon noting some of the limitations of common fuzzy concept-based risk assessment methods (as captured in Table 1), the authors opted for the Fuzzy DEMATEL methodology in this research.

2. The relevant definitions of the fuzzy approach should be described in detail in Section 3.

Response: Following definitions added:

Response: In a fuzzy DEMATEL model, the identification of the set of risk factors is the crucial first step. The risk factors represent the various aspects or dimensions of the problem under consideration, mining truck accidents, and their selection should be based on their relevance, significance, and measurability.

In a fuzzy DEMATEL model, the decision-making panel consists of a group of experts or stakeholders who provide their subjective judgments on the cause-and-effect relationships among the risk factors identified. The decision-making panel also plays a key role in interpreting the results of the fuzzy DEMATEL model and using them to support decision-making. It is, therefore, important to consult with specialists who were well-versed in the subject matter and had sufficient hands-on experience with producing logical evaluations.

In the fuzzy DEMATEL model, a linguistic scale is a tool used to represent the degree of importance or influence of a risk factor being analyzed. This scale is used to capture the subjective judgments of experts in numerical terms that can be analyzed for effective decision making. The scale typically consists of a set of labels or terms that are used to describe the degree of importance or influence of a risk factor.

Next, triangular fuzzy numbers are assigned to each linguistic label. The triangular fuzzy numbers are defined using three parameters: the minimum value, the most likely value, and the maximum value.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear authors,

After reviewing the second version of the manuscript, this reviewer has the following observations:

1. In Lines 60 and 61 there is a break in the text that includes a number "2" that is not necessary.

2. In line 137, the Table 1 caption must be separated from the previous paragraph.

3. Line 163 is missing the word "Table".

4. This reviewer considers that by joining the methodology with the results, in a single section, the order of the document was lost. Therefore, the analysis of results is confusing. The first version was much better in this regard. This reviewer recommends rearranging the document with these two separate sections.

5. Please, what happened to the mathematical explanations in sections 3.4 to 3.7? why were they deleted? These explanations gave scientific rigor to the document. Please include that information.

Although the manuscript improved in literature review and discussion, the quality of the presentation decreased by mixing sections that should be separated and by eliminating relevant information that provides theoretical support to the research.

Author Response

After reviewing the second version of the manuscript, this reviewer has the following observations:

Response: Thank you so much for reviewing the manuscript and giving your valuable comments to improve its quality.

1. In Lines 60 and 61 there is a break in the text that includes a number "2" that is not necessary.

Response: Line numbers not corresponding to the submitted manuscript. However, authors have scanned the entire manuscript for this error.

2. In line 137, the Table 1 caption must be separated from the previous paragraph.

Response: All table captions separated from the previous paragraph.

3. Line 163 is missing the word "Table".

Response: Line number not corresponding to submitted manuscript.

4. This reviewer considers that by joining the methodology with the results, in a single section, the order of the document was lost. Therefore, the analysis of results is confusing. The first version was much better in this regard. This reviewer recommends rearranging the document with these two separate sections.

Response: We have now restructured the manuscript as pointed out by the esteemed reviewer. Also, the Results and Discussion section is now separated from the methodology section.

5. Please, what happened to the mathematical explanations in sections 3.4 to 3.7? why were they deleted? These explanations gave scientific rigor to the document. Please include that information.

Response: Relevant mathematical equations are reintroduced as advised by the esteemed reviewer.

Although the manuscript improved in literature review and discussion, the quality of the presentation decreased by mixing sections that should be separated and by eliminating relevant information that provides theoretical support to the research.

Response: Thank you so much for your observation. Now we have taken sufficient care in restructuring the manuscript to make it more presentable and reintroduced the equations and other information to provide theoretical support to the research.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Even though this research is not totally new, it is excellent and will be highly beneficial to prospective researchers. The writing in the manuscript is admirable and orderly. I have some minor recommendations, which are as follows:

 

1. The authors used a Fuzzy DEMATEL (Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial Evaluation Laboratory) approach to conduct an in-depth assessment of the critical factors in mining transport accidents which are well represented and explained.
2. Remove underlining from the text in lines 65, 66, 67, and 69, 91.
3. In Fig. 1 on page 2, line 71, parameters on the x-axis, physicial stress should be replaced by physical stress.
4. In Fig. 2 on page 3, line 74, the year data on the x-axis should be resized and separated.
5. Remove all typos and grammatical errors in all sections of the manuscript.
6. Table 3, page 7, line 162, column entry (Qualification) should be rewritten without using hyphens in the next line.
7. In section 3.2, page no. 7, line no. 157 modified the experience range from 15 to 30
8. In section 3.3, page no. 8, the authors used only fuzzy triangular numbers, but fuzzy trapezoidal numbers and fuzzy pentagonal numbers, etc. were also available. I suggest authors use two fuzzy numbers and two defuzzification methods (the centroid method, signed distance, graded mean integration, etc.) and compare their results.
9. In subsection 3.6.1, the authors should use r_i and c_j  (i and j in the lower suffix only). Do these changes in lines 192, 192,203-207, and many other places, and do the same changes of suffix in Fig. 7, page 10, line 230.
10. In the reference section.
• Ref [14], page no. 19, line no. 373, data not displayed on the provided link (changes reference).
• Ref [17], page no. 20, line no. 382, the author should add volume and issue page no. with a doi.
• Some references, i.e., ref [18], page 20, line 384, are available without doi.
• Ref [19], page no. 20, line no. 386, the author should modify the complete name of the journal.
• Ref [20], page no. 20, line no. 388, the author should add the DOI of the journal and remove the link to Research Gate.
• Recheck the font size of reference no. 30-35, page no. 21, and lines 413–425.
• References are not as in journal format.

Author Response

Even though this research is not totally new, it is excellent and will be highly beneficial to prospective researchers. The writing in the manuscript is admirable and orderly. I have some minor recommendations, which are as follows:

1. The authors used a Fuzzy DEMATEL(Fuzzy Decision-Making Trial Evaluation Laboratory) approach to conduct an in-depth assessment of the critical factors in mining transport accidents which are well represented and explained.

Response: Thank you so much for your appreciation of the paper and for giving your valuable suggestions to improve its quality.

2. Remove underlining from the text in lines 65, 66, 67, and 69, 91.

Response: Underlines are removed from the manuscript. May be these lines are auto-generated by the system.

3. In Fig. 1 on page 2, line 71, parameters on the x-axis, physicial stress should be replaced by physical stress.

Response: It is now corrected in Fig. 2 (previously Fig. 1). Thank you for your observation.

4. In Fig. 2 on page 3, line 74, the year data on the x-axis should be resized and separated.

Response: The year data on the x-axis has been resized and separated by tick marks outside of the axis. Thank you.

5. Remove all typos and grammatical errors in all sections of the manuscript.

Response: Thoroughly read the manuscript and corrected the all typos and grammatical errors in all sections of the manuscript as suggested.

6. Table 3, page 7, line 162, column entry (Qualification) should be rewritten without using hyphens in the next line.

Response: Corrected

7. In section 3.2, page no. 7, line no. 157 modified the experience range from 15 to 30

Response: Corrected

8. In section 3.3, page no. 8, the authors used only fuzzy triangular numbers, but fuzzy trapezoidal numbers and fuzzy pentagonal numbers, etc. were also available. I suggest authors use two fuzzy numbers and two defuzzification methods (the centroid method, signed distance, graded mean integration, etc.) and compare their results.

Response: The choice of using fuzzy triangular numbers, as opposed to fuzzy trapezoidal numbers, or fuzzy pentagonal numbers was made for the sake of simplicity. Triangular fuzzy numbers are the simplest type of fuzzy numbers, consisting of three parameters that are easy to define and understand. Using only triangular fuzzy numbers simplifies the analysis and make it easier to communicate the results to stakeholders. Moreover, triangular fuzzy numbers can help to make the analysis more intuitive and easier to understand. This can be particularly important when communicating the results to non-experts. Earlier feedback on this manuscript had noted that the matrix results are already too complicated for readers and therefore were moved to Appendices. Using multiple types of fuzzy numbers (such as trapezoidal or pentagonal) carries a risk of introducing additional complexity and variability that could make the analysis more difficult to interpret and validate.

9. In subsection 3.6.1, the authors should use r_iand c_j  (i and j in the lower suffix only). Do these changes in lines 192, 192,203-207, and many other places, and do the same changes of suffix in Fig. 7, page 10, line 230.

Response: Corrected

10. In the reference section.

• Ref [14], page no. 19, line no. 373, data not displayed on the provided link (changes reference).
• Ref [17], page no. 20, line no. 382, the author should add volume and issue page no. with a doi.
• Some references, i.e., ref [18], page 20, line 384, are available without doi.
• Ref [19], page no. 20, line no. 386, the author should modify the complete name of the journal.
• Ref [20], page no. 20, line no. 388, the author should add the DOI of the journal and remove the link to Research Gate.
• Recheck the font size of reference no. 30-35, page no. 21, and lines 413–425.
• References are not as in journal format.

Response: All references are corrected in common format with full journal names and DOI/URL. Also, removed the link to Research Gate as suggested.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear Authors,

This reviewer considers that, after two rounds of review, you managed to consolidate a document suitable for publication. Therefore, I recommend this publication.

Author Response

We thank the esteemed reviewer for recommending the paper for publication in Sustainability.

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

This paper conducted a Fuzzy Decision-making Trial Evaluation Laboratory model to explore the significant effects of external factors on the truck road accident of mineral transportation. A series of sensitivity analysis for various scenarios were included to support the evaluation reliability of the decisions. Although this is an interesting viewpoint which to discuss the benefits of mining industry applied more intelligent technology, it also has a long way to be published in the journal Sustainability. My specific comments are shown as below:

 

Firstly, I strongly urge the authors to reorganize the article structure and optimize the expression of paper wordings. For example, the literature section should focus more on the research methods. But at present, the article illustrated a lot of accident information in this section. I think this part of information should be mainly placed in the section of introduction.

 

Secondly, the description of research method in this paper is too simple. This would make readers feel that the Fuzzy Decision-making Trial Evaluation Laboratory model itself is easy. Do I miss anything?

 

Thirdly, the authors used a large length of the article to illustrate the fuzzy matrix and the fuzzy values. However, this information has brought a great burden to the readers and has not brought us the necessary findings intuitively. Are there any ways to express what the authors want to say in these places?

 

Finally, the authors has given too many pictures of the truck accidents. Some pictures are even put in the section of conclusions. But what information do these pictures want to tell for the readers?

Author Response

This paper conducted a Fuzzy Decision-making Trial Evaluation Laboratory model to explore the significant effects of external factors on the truck road accident of mineral transportation. A series of sensitivity analysis for various scenarios were included to support the evaluation reliability of the decisions. Although this is an interesting viewpoint which to discuss the benefits of mining industry applied more intelligent technology, it also has a long way to be published in the journal Sustainability. My specific comments are shown as below:

 

Response: Thank you so much for reviewing the manuscript and giving your valuable inputs to improve its quality.

 

1. Firstly, I strongly urge the authors to reorganize the article structure and optimize the expression of paper wordings. For example, the literature section should focus more on the research methods. But at present, the article illustrated a lot of accident information in this section. I think this part of information should be mainly placed in the section of introduction.

 

Response: Reorganized the article structure as advised. All accident information moved from ‘Review of Literature’ to ‘Introduction’ section.

 

2. Secondly, the description of the research method in this paper is too simple. This would make readers feel that the Fuzzy Decision Making Trial Evaluation Laboratory model itself is easy. Do I miss anything?

 

Response: The research methodology is described in detail split in 9 steps (section 3.1 to 3.9). Based on the feedback of other reviewers, each step is described in a most comprehensible manner without a description of the mathematical equations. The mathematical equations can be found in the source cited within each section.

 

3. Thirdly, the authors used a large length of the article to illustrate the fuzzy matrix and the fuzzy values. However, this information has brought a great burden to the readers and has not brought us the necessary findings intuitively. Are there any ways to express what the authors want to say in these places?

 

Response: Key outputs from the fuzzy methodology are always represented in matrix format. Since our study uses a panel of ten evaluators and assesses 20 risk factors, the matrix is wide and long. However, for ease of comprehensive, the detailed matrix outputs have been moved to Appendix (1 to 5). Only the main results are retained under Section 3.7 and 3.9. Any reader wanting to explore the detailed methodology utilized to arrive at these results can look up the outputs included in the Appendices. The authors believe this is a good way to organize the paper.

 

4. Finally, the authors have given too many pictures of the truck accidents. Some pictures are even put in the section of conclusions. But what information do these pictures want to tell the readers?

 

Response: Some pictures are moved to the methodology section, and the following text is added: Evidence was also collected by consulting with experts and witnesses in the field from the Bellary-Hospet-Sandur (BHS) region, where the 1^st author’s work is based, who referred to specific accident incidents to identify the causal factors (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3).

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Why DEMATEL method is selected for evaluating risk rather than others, such as FMEA, in this research? The relevant comparisons should be and discussed.

2.The paper emphasizes on the pipe conveyor system as an alternate and safer mineral transportation system for the mines, but ignore to highlight the relevant risk of the pipe conveyor system.

3. The relevant definitions of the fuzzy approach are not clear in Section 3.

 

Author Response

1. Why is the DEMATEL method selected for evaluating risk rather than others, such as FMEA, in this research? The relevant comparisons should be discussed.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. Due to limitations of other fuzzy risk models, DEMATEL method was selected for evaluating the risk. Limitations of other fuzzy risk models are presented in Table 1.

 

2. The paper emphasizes the pipe conveyor system as an alternate and safer mineral transportation system for the mines, but ignores to highlight the relevant risk of the pipe conveyor system.

 

Response: Authors have now highlighted the relevant risk of the pipe conveyor system in the revised manuscript.

 

3. The relevant definitions of the fuzzy approach are not clear in Section 3.

 

Response: Descriptions of each step in the fuzzy methodology have now been edited to explain the concepts (Refer Section 3.1 to 3.9). The mathematical equations can be found at the source cited within each section. They have been removed for ease of comprehension.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Below you will find several observations of your paper. This reviewer considers that these observations will help you to generate a complete document. Moreover, please bear in mind that one of the purposes of a scientific paper is that the research carried out is replicable by other researchers. Please send back a new version of the paper and a response letter indicating how you attended each observation:

1.       Please change the keywords that have already been written in the title, this to broaden the possibilities of searching and finding your paper.

2.       In Line 11, in the abstract, it is not clear what "they" refers to. It seems that the subject of this sentence is missing. If the subject of this sentence is "truck haulage", "they" is in the plural, so it is not a correct pronoun in this case.

3.       In Line 19, in the abstract, "E19" is out of context since the authors have not yet defined where the E19 code comes from. This reviewer suggests taking one of two alternatives: 1. Delete E19 from the abstract or 2. Explain, in the abstract, where the code comes from and what the letter E means. The same goes for (ri − cj) in Line 20, what are ri and cj?

4.       The introduction clearly presents the background and the need for the research proposed by the authors. However, the introduction needs to clearly present the purpose of the paper, without going so far as to declare that the DEMATEL method is the solution (It is too early to talk about the DEMATEL method, the research problem and objectives are just being defined... the method will come later). The introduction also needs to present how the rest of the manuscript is organized. The need to talk about the DEMATEL method will arise in the literature review, when the methods used to solve the research problem formulated by the authors are addressed.

5.       This reviewer considers that Fig. 1 does not present percentage of cases but number of cases. If Fig. 1 presents percentage, the sum of the values would be 100%, but there is no such result. Please clarify and correct, since these are cases and causes. In the vertical axis, "percentage" is written incorrectly.

6.       In Line 88, please replace "Fig 2 and 3" with "Fig 2 and Fig 3".

7.       In Fig. 2 the same case happens as in Fig. 1 (comment 5). If Fig. 2 shows percentages, the sum of the values per year would be 100%. It seems that Fig. 2 shows the number of accidents by year and by type of accident. Please clarify and correct.

8.       In Fig. 3, what is the purpose of linear regressions and coefficients of determination? If the regression is linear, why do the authors present a curved line (blue color)? Please clarify and delete all the information that is not useful within the manuscript. In lines 86 to 88 there is a description of Fig. 3 that does not correspond to the legend of said figure. Please review and correct so that there is concordance.

9.       In Fig. 4, the authors use coma as a thousand separator in the vertical axis. However, the values corresponding to each bar have no coma. Please unify and correct. This is an observation for the entire document. Please move the values of each bar up to facilitate reading.

10.    In section 2. Review of Literature, this reviewer is concerned by the fact that there are no references to research in which the DEMATEL method was used to study safety factors in mining production. The authors should note that such references will allow them to discuss their findings against the existing literature.

11.    In Table 2, Code E9, please correct "Drivers’" in the potential reasons.

12.    Please uniform the use of quotation marks throughout the manuscript, since sometimes the authors use (") and other times (').

13.    In Line 217, the authors present "xi in the universe of discourse". However, it seems that the authors want to express "xi is the universe of discourse". Please review and correct.

14.    In Line 261, please verify spacing between words.

15.    In Fig. 9, please include the legends to all axes.

16.    In Line 320, please replace "Fig. 10 and 11" with "Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.

17.    Throughout the manuscript, please unify the writing of the figures using a period: for example, Fig. X.

18.    At Line 358, it looks like "author" should be in the plural.

19.    The authors made a satisfactory results analysis. However, this reviewer's main concern about this manuscript is that it needs discussion of the findings against the existing literature. As stated above, the review of the literature is the main concern of this reviewer. Therefore, the authors' findings cannot be located in the current state of knowledge, both methodologically and in the similarity or difference between the safety factors determined by other authors in India and other countries. Such a discussion will allow the authors to argue how the idiosyncrasy of India is similar or different to the idiosyncrasy of other countries, based on contrasting their own safety factors against factors reported by other authors. A quick review allowed this reviewer to find the following papers that use the DEMATEL method applied to transport safety in mining.

§   Influencing factors on mining safety in China (including transport):

Linlin Wang, Qinggui Cao, Lujie Zhou. Research on the influencing factors in coal mine production safety based on the combination of DEMATEL and ISM. Safety Science, Volume 103, 2018. Pages 51-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.007.

§   5 categories including financial factors, regulatory factors, organizational factors, social factors, and technical factors in China. This reference is useful as the authors seek to promote the transportation of minerals by pipeline in India:

Rui Qi, Sha Li, Lu Qu, Li Sun, Chengzhu Gong. Critical factors to green mining construction in China: A two-step fuzzy DEMATEL analysis of state-owned coal mining enterprises. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 273, 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122852.

§   Mining machinery maintenance management in Poland:

Tubis, A.; Werbińska-Wojciechowska, S.; Sliwinski, P.; Zimroz, R. Fuzzy Risk-Based Maintenance Strategy with Safety Considerations for the Mining Industry. Sensors 2022, 22, 441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s22020441.

§   A review of the topic (safety is a relevant issue):

Liu, S.Q.; Lin, Z.; Li, D.; Li, X.; Kozan, E.; Masoud, M. Recent Research Agendas in Mining Equipment Management: A Review. Mining 2022, 2, 769-790. https://doi.org/10.3390/mining2040043

§   Reference [3] in the manuscript is used in the introduction but needs to be used for discussion:

Tripathy, D.P.; Ala, C.K. Identification of safety hazards in Indian underground coal mines. Journal of Sustainable Mining, 2018, 422 17(4), 175–183. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsm.2018.07.005.

§   Factors as transportation and maintenance in India. Please note that the discussion of factors is independent of the method used by the other authors:

Pramod Kumar, Suprakash Gupta, Yuga Raju Gunda. Estimation of human error rate in underground coal mines through retrospective analysis of mining accident reports and some error reduction strategies. Safety Science, Volume 123, 2020. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104555.

§   Several factors in India:

S. Gupta, P. Kumar, N. C. Karmakar and S. K. Palei. Quantification of human error rate in underground coal mines — A fuzzy mapping and rough set based approach. 2013. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Bangkok, Thailand, 2013, pp. 140-144, DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2013.6962391.

§   Several factors in Australia:

Jessica M. Patterson, Scott A. Shappell. Operator error and system deficiencies: Analysis of 508 mining incidents and accidents from Queensland, Australia using HFACS. Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 42, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1379-1385. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.02.018.

As can be seen, there is enough literature to generate discussion, both from previous research in India and from other countries.

Author Response

Dear authors,

Below you will find several observations of your paper. This reviewer considers that these observations will help you to generate a complete document. Moreover, please bear in mind that one of the purposes of a scientific paper is that the research carried out is replicable by other researchers. Please send back a new version of the paper and a response letter indicating how you attended each observation:

Response: Thank you so much for reviewing the manuscript and giving your valuable inputs to improve its quality.

 

1. Please change the keywords that have already been written in the title, this to broaden the possibilities of searching and finding your paper.

 

Response: Revised the keywords as follows: Truck accidents; risk evaluation; Fuzzy DEMATEL; mineral transportation planning; decision making; mine safety.

 

2. In Line 11, in the abstract, it is not clear what "they" refers to. It seems that the subject of this sentence is missing. If the subject of this sentence is "truck haulage", "they" is in the plural, so it is not a correct pronoun in this case.

 

Response: Thank you for the observation. Revised to “this mode of transportation”.

 

3. In Line 19, in the abstract, "E19" is out of context since the authors have not yet defined where the E19 code comes from. This reviewer suggests taking one of two alternatives: 1. Delete E19 from the abstract or
4. Explain, in the abstract, where the code comes from and what the letter E means. The same goes for (ri − cj) in Line 20, what are ri and cj?

 

Response: Deleted from abstract as suggested.

 

4. The introduction clearly presents the background and the need for the research proposed by the authors. However, the introduction needs to clearly present the purpose of the paper, without going so far as to declare that the DEMATEL method is the solution (It is too early to talk about the DEMATEL method, the research problem and objectives are just being defined... the method will come later). The need to talk about the DEMATEL method will arise in the literature review, when the methods used to solve the research problem formulated by the authors are addressed.

 

Response: Thank you for the valuable comment. The following text is removed from Introduction: As a result, the authors adopted the Fuzzy DEMATEL modeling approach in this study. The cause and effects are interdependent parameters commonly studied by the cause-effect relationship causal diagram adapting the DEMATEL method. The DEMATEL technique is considered better than the conventional method as it exposes the critical connection between the factors and ranks the elements based on their close-fitting intensities of exhibiting their effects on each criterion designed. However, a single technique is inadequate to identify the risks involved in haul-truck accidents under ambiguity and nebulousness. Therefore, an integrated approach system is needed to address the risks considered. Hence, the Fuzzy linguistic modeling method is considered to frame an assimilated method to represent and handle pliable details [14].

 

The DEMATEL technique studies cause and effects as interdependent parameters and better exposes the complex connection between causal factors that are ranked based on the intensity of impact. The method reveals the causal effect of each factor in terms of linguistic variables associated with the Triangular Fuzzy Membership Function (TFN) and enhances prototypical applicability [15]. The characteristic property of the Fuzzy DEMATEL assessment establishes interrelationship between the critical parameters involved in the haul-truck accidents by creating cause-effect relationship. The method identifies TFN which gives reliable data as ambiguity is managed by means of Fuzzy reasoning. This approach provides precise and effective data which addresses the risk assessment as influences involved in the haul-truck accidents can be better ranked and evaluated for preventing the potential hazards involved in fatality and injuries.

 

The introduction also needs to present how the rest of the manuscript is organized.

 

Response: Presentation of the rest of the manuscript added: The shortcomings of the conventional methods used in analyzing the cause-effect relationships underlying mineral transport accidents have been discussed in some detail in Section 2 of this paper. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 3, we introduce our research methodology, which is an improved Fuzzy DEMATEL modeling approach, and illustrate our findings. Section 4 discusses the results and the main conclusions drawn are summarized in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 presents recommendations on further promoting transportation safety in the mining industry.

 

5. This reviewer considers that Fig. 1 does not present the percentage of cases but number of cases. If Fig. 1 presents percentage, the sum of the values would be 100%, but there is no such result. Please clarify and correct, since these are cases and causes. In the vertical axis, "percentage" is written incorrectly.

 

Response: The suggested correction is made. Text changed to ‘number of cases’ on the vertical axis.

 

6. In Line 88, please replace "Fig 2 and 3" with "Fig 2 and Fig 3".

 

Response: Correction made.

 

7. In Fig. 2 the same case happens as in Fig. 1 (comment 5). If Fig. 2 shows percentages, the sum of the values per year would be 100%. It seems that Fig. 2 shows the number of accidents by year and by type of accident. Please clarify and correct.

 

Response: Correction made. Text changed to ‘number of cases’ on the vertical axis.

 

8. In Fig. 3, what is the purpose of linear regressions and coefficients of determination? If the regression is linear, why do the authors present a curved line (blue color)? Please clarify and delete all the information that is not useful within the manuscript. In lines 86 to 88 there is a description of Fig. 3 that does not correspond to the legend of said figure. Please review and correct so that there is concordance.

 

Response: Figure 3 has been deleted.

Incorrect text deleted: “which shows a considerable increase in the cases from 2017 to 2018”.

 

9. In Fig. 4, the authors use commas as a thousand separators in the vertical axis. However, the values corresponding to each bar have no coma. Please unify and correct. This is an observation for the entire document. Please move the values of each bar up to facilitate reading.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. Commas added in values and values moved outside, on top of bars.

 

10. In section 2, Review of Literature, this reviewer is concerned by the fact that there are no references to research in which the DEMATEL method was used to study safety factors in mining production. The authors should note that such references will allow them to discuss their findings against the existing literature.

 

Response: The following sentences are added: The authors reviewed previous research that utilizes the Fuzzy DEMATEL approach to analyze variables for cause-and-effect relationships in the mining industry in India, China and other geographies [24-27]. The gap in literature that utilizes this methodology to particularly assess transportation-related risks in Indian mines inspired the present research.

 

11. In Table 2, Code E9, please correct "Drivers’" in the potential reasons.

 

Response: Corrected.

 

12. Please uniform the use of quotation marks throughout the manuscript, since sometimes the authors use (") and other times (').

 

Response: Corrected.

 

13. In Line 217, the authors present "xi in the universe of discourse". However, it seems that the authors want to express "xi is the universe of discourse". Please review and correct.

 

Response: Corrected.

 

14. In Line 261, please verify spacing between words.

 

Response: Corrected.

 

15. In Fig. 9, please include the legends to all axes.

 

Response: The images contain legends, the lines are labeled as either (ri + cj) or (ri - cj) under each scenario. Axis titles added.

 

16. In Line 320, please replace "Fig. 10 and 11" with "Fig. 10 and Fig. 11.

 

Response: Replaced as suggested.

 

17. Throughout the manuscript, please unify the writing of the figures using a period: for example, Fig. X.

 

Response: All replaced in Fig. X. format.

 

18. At Line 358, it looks like "author" should be in the plural.

 

Response: Corrected as suggested.

 

19. The authors made a satisfactory results analysis. However, this reviewer's main concern about this manuscript is that it needs discussion of the findings against the existing literature. As stated above, the review of the literature is the main concern of this reviewer. Therefore, the authors' findings cannot be located in the current state of knowledge, both methodologically and in the similarity or difference between the safety factors determined by other authors in India and other countries. Such a discussion will allow the authors to argue how the idiosyncrasy of India is similar or different to the idiosyncrasy of other countries, based on contrasting their own safety factors against factors reported by other authors.

 

Response: Some references are added. Kindly note that previous researches on the application of the fuzzy DEMATEL approach in risk assessment of transportation-related mining accidents in India are limited, and therefore, a more extensive comparison of results to existing literature is not possible.